Love’s Labor’s Lost, 4.2

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.435  Thursday, 23 October 2014


[1] From:        Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         September 30, 2014 at 1:08:19 PM EDT

     Subject:    Re: LLL 4.2


[2] From:        Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         October 1, 2014 at 7:00:17 AM EDT

     Subject:    Love's Labour's Lost and Stenography 


[3] From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

     Date:         October 9, 2014 at 1:40:21 AM EDT

     Subject:     LLL 2.1: Rosaline-Katherine Tangle 




From:        Bill Lloyd <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         September 30, 2014 at 1:08:19 PM EDT

Subject:    Re: LLL 4.2


Re: Love's Labour's Lost 4.2 etc etc etc


I wonder what Gerald Downs thinks of Tiffany Stern’s recent article “Sermons, Plays and Note-takers: Hamlet Q1 as a ‘Noted’ Text” in Shakespeare Survey 66 (2014).


Just to be clear, this is not a taunt—I’m interested in his opinion of it. It would seem to lend some support to the detail of certain of his arguments, if not to their breadth and scope.


Bill Lloyd 



From:        Pervez Rizvi <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         October 1, 2014 at 7:00:17 AM EDT

Subject:    Love's Labour's Lost and Stenography


I do appreciate Gerald Downs' contributions and I read them with interest. They would require hours of careful study to engage with properly so this is only a token response. 


If the quarto of LLL really is the result of stenography, either directly or via the presumed lost quarto, then it becomes hard to explain why Berowne asks Rosaline twice to give him some answer to his love and why twice she tells him to go and cheer up sick people. The first time the dialogue goes like this:


Berow. And what to me my Loue? and what to me?

Rosal. You must be purged to, your sinnes are rackt.

You are attaint with faultes and periurie:

Therefore if you my fauour meane to get,

A tweluemonth shall you spende and neuer rest,

But seeke the weery beddes of people sicke.


A few lines later we get a longer and more polished version:


Berow. Studdies my Ladie? Mistres looke on me,

Beholde the window of my hart, mine eye:

What humble suite attendes thy answere there,

Impose some seruice on me for thy Loue.

Rosa. Oft haue I heard of you my Lord Berowne,

Before I saw you: and the worldes large tongue

Proclaymes you for a man repleat with mockes,



Berow. A tweluemonth? well; befall what will befall,

Ile iest a tweluemonth in an Hospitall.


The traditional explanation is that Shakespeare made two attempts to write the passage. An alternative explanation is that the first version was the one made up by the reporter of the lost bad quarto, the second version is Shakespeare's, and the bad text contaminated the good one (as is also supposed for Romeo, Hamlet and possibly Lear). But if we conjecture stenography then are we to suppose that both versions were spoken on the stage? That doesn't seem to make sense.


Another objection is the name of the king, Ferdinand. It is never spoken by any character so how would a stenographer know it? If we are to suppose that he just made up a name then why did he not also make one up for the Princess of France?


Shakespeare scholarship is not sympathetic to the idea of stenography (nor am I but I am willing to think about it). But the climate may change, as it did for the ideas of revision and collaboration. If any Shakespeare text is really the result of stenography then that is exciting because it means that we can read in it the actual words spoken in an actual performance by Shakespeare's company, something we cannot assume with many other texts such as Q2 Hamlet.



From:        Gerald E. Downs <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         October 9, 2014 at 1:40:21 AM EDT

Subject:     LLL 2.1: Rosaline-Katherine Tangle


By suggesting that the “Katherine/Rosaline Tangle” of Love’s Labor’s Lost might be easy to solve I meant to talk myself into a stab at the historically difficult series of problems; adding shorthand to the mix may bypass the self-imposed mix-ups of the “Shakespeare at Work” insistence. Once convinced that a text is reported, my interest drops; but I’ll tackle the 2.1 “tangle” for a little while.


Woudhuysen (Arden3) observes, “one notorious problem with assigning speeches . . . revolves around Berowne. The episode is complicated: some of the solutions which have been put forward to explain it are even more complicated and a simple explanation of it is attractive.” Simple explanations may ignore the complications of their premises. To choose between conjectures Arden3 notes that “solutions to the crux – involving masks, cancellations, revisions and separate sheets of paper – can and have been put forward, but Hibbard’s theory of authorial indecision ‘accounts for more than any other hypothesis and accounts for it more readily and economically’” (311). I believe the theories, including Hibbard’s—sight unseen—share a flaw: the indecision isn’t Shakespeare’s.


Theatrical reports haven’t access to authorial set directions or speech assignments; none are to be trusted without clear evidence. Arden3 alters many of the scene’s prefixes while accepting the rest implicitly. Logically, the errors call others into question; ignoring them invites needless complications. The set directions may not be the foundation of authorial intentions but of “editorial” floundering, early and late. 


             Enter the Princesse of Fraunce, with three

                   attending Ladies and three Lordes.


[Where are the ‘three Lords’? Assuming this is not a “massed entry” including the King’s Men (but not the King), there is no need for more ‘Lords’ than Boyet. When lords enter, speech headings aren’t far behind. I see a mistake stemming from the Princess’s question at 528: Who are the votaries – my (not so) loving lords – vowing to shun women for three years? Or, ‘my loving Ladies’ (where L. could denote either title in transmission). As it is, the existence of lords, silent or not, doesn’t affect the tangle. But that kind of question should be asked of all vague s.d.’s.]


  Boyet. Now Maddame summon vp your dearest spirrits,

Cosider who the King your father sendes:

To whom he sendes, and whats his Embassie.  494

Your selfe, helde precious in the worldes esteeme,

To parlee with the sole inheritoure

Of all perfections that a man may owe,

Matchles Nauar, the plea of no lesse weight,

Then Aquitaine a Dowrie for a Queene.

. . . . . .

  Queene. . . .

But now to taske the tasker, good Boyet,

You are not ignorant all telling fame

Doth noyse abroad Nauar hath made a Vow,

Till painefull studie shall outweare three yeeres.

No Woman may approch his silent Court:  515

. . . . . .

  Prince. All pride is willing pride, and yours is so:

Who are the Votaries my louing Lordes, that are vowfel-

lowes with this vertuous Duke?

  Lor. Longauill is one.    530

  Princ. Know you the man?

  1. Lady. I know him Maddame at a marriage feast,

Betweene L. Perigort and the bewtious heire

Of Iaques Fauconbridge solemnized.

In Normandie saw I this Longauill,

A man of soueraigne peerelsse he is esteemd:

. . . . . .

  Prin. Some merrie mocking Lord belike, ist so?

  Lad. They say so most, that most his humors know.

  Prin. Such short liued wits do wither as they grow.


[‘Lor.’ may as well be ‘1. Lady’. In John of Bordeaux, 1 & 2 are added by someone other than the scribe. As with that play, the generic prefixes here are not evidence of authorship. At 715 Maria gets a prefix. Her name doesn’t appear in the dialogue until act 5, where Longaville makes it clear she is the target of his affection. If ‘1. Lady’ is Maria, she and Longaville are properly paired.]


Who are the rest?

  2. Lad. The young Dumaine, a well accomplisht youth,

Of all that Vertue loue, for Vertue loued.

Most power to do most harme, least knowing ill:   550

For he hath wit to make an ill shape good,

And shape to win grace though he had no wit.

I saw him at the Duke Alansoes once,

And much too little of that good I saw,

Is my report to his great worthines.


[‘2. Lady’ is Katharine, no doubt, but the prefix guy didn’t know that yet.]


  3. Lad. An other of these Studentes at that time,

Was there with him, if I haue heard a trueth.

Berowne they call him, but a merrier man,

Within the limit of becomming mirth,

I neuer spent an houres talke withall.   560

His eye begets occasion for his wit,

For euery obiect that the one doth catch,

The other turnes to a mirth-moouing iest.

Which his fayre tongue (conceites expositer)

Deliuers in such apt and gracious wordes,

That aged eares play treuant at his tales.

And younger hearinges are quite rauished.

So sweete and voluble is his discourse.

  Prin. God blesse my Ladyes, are they all in loue?

That euery one her owne hath garnished,    570

With such bedecking ornaments of praise.

  Lord. Heere comes Boyet.                  Enter Boyet.


[The last Lady is Rosaline, of course. The Princess pegs the pairs. Again, we need no ‘Lord’ to spot Boyet, nor Shakespeare to write, ‘Enter Boyet.’]


  Prin. Now, What admittance Lord?

  Boyet. Nauar had notice of your faire approch,

And he and his compettitours in oth,

Were all addrest to meete you gentle Lady

Before I came: Marrie thus much I haue learnt,

He rather meanes to lodge you in the feelde,

. . . . . .

       Enter Nauar, Longauill, Dumaine, & Berowne.

  Bo. Heere comes Nauar.               584

  Nauar. Faire Princesse, Welcome to the court of Nauar.

  Prin. Faire I giue you backe againe, and welcome I haue

not yet: the roofe of this Court is too high to be yours, and

welcome to the wide fieldes too base to be mine.

  Nau. You shalbe welcome Madame to my Court.

  Prin. I wilbe welcome then, Conduct me thither.

  Nau. Heare me deare Lady, I haue sworne an oth,

  Prin. Our Lady helpe my Lord, he'le be forsworne.

  Nau. Not for the worldefaire Madame, by my will.

. . . . . .

  Berowne. Did not I dance with you in Brabant once?

  Kather. Did not I dance with you in Brabant once?

  Ber. I know you did.                         611

  Kath. How needles was it then to aske the question?

  Ber. You must not be so quicke.

  Kath. Tis long of you that spur me with such questions.

  Ber. Your wit's too hot, it speedes too fast, twill tire.

  Kath. Not till it leaue the rider in the mire.

  Ber. What time a day?

  Kath. The houre that fooles should aske.

  Ber. Now faire befall your maske.

  Kath. Faire fall the face it couers.     620

  Ber. And send you manie louers.

  Kath. Amen, so you be none.

  Ber. Nay then will I be gon.


[All agree that Berowne and Rosaline are speaking here. The obvious question: why ‘Kath.’? It’s clear the two have met, for an hour, at a dance, and that they recognize each other. The ‘time a day’ straight line lets Ros call Berowne a fool in a way that may relate to a time to unmask. But there’s no indication (or reason to suppose) that the ladies were played as masked in the cow pasture.]


    Ferd. Madame, your father heere doth intimate,

The payment of a hundred thousand Crownes,

. . . . . .

You may not come (faire Princesse) within my gates,

But here without you shalbe so receiude,     670

As you shall deeme your selfe lodgd in my hart.

Though so denide faire harbour in my house,

Your owne good thoughtes excuse me, and farewell.

To morow shall we visite you againe.

  Pri. Sweete health and faire desires consort your grace.

  Na. Thy owne wish wish I thee in euery place.    Exit.

  Ber. Ladie I will commend you to my none hart.

  Ros. Pray you, do my commendations, I would be glad

       to see it.

  Ber. I would you heard it grone.               680

  Ros. Is the foole sicke.

  Ber. Sicke at the hart.

  Ros. Alacke, let it blood.

  Bar. Would that do it good?

  Ros. My Phisicke saies I.                          685

  Ber. Will you prickt with your eye.

  Ros. No poynt, with my knife.

  Ber. Now God saue thy life.

  Ros. And yours from long liuing.

  Ber. I cannot stay thankes-giuing.             Exit.         690

                           Enter Dumaine.

  Dum. Sir, I pray you a word, What Ladie is that same?

  Boyet. The heire of Alanson, Rosalin her name.

  Dum. A gallant Lady Mounsir, fare you wel.    Exit.  694


[Rosaline couldn’t really mean she would like to see Berowne’s heart—but speech headings are right, at least to 690. ‘Enter Dumaine’ is a mistake. When Berowne steps away he asks Boyet who the lady is; the name Rosalin is directed to Berowne. (That was easy.)]


  Longauill. I beseech you a word, What is she in the white?

  Boyet. A woman sometimes, and you saw her in the light.

  Lon. Perchance light in the light. I desire her name?

  Bo. She hath but one for her selfe, to desire that were a

  Lon. Pray you sir, Whose daughter?                   (shame.

  Bo. Her mothers, I haue heard.            701

  Lon. Gods blessing on your beard.                     (bridge.

  Bo. Good sir be not offended, She is an heire of Falcon-

  Lon. Nay my coller is ended. She is a most sweet Ladie.

  Bo. Not vnlike sir, that may be.                Exit Longauil.


[Againe, Longaville and Maria are well connected.]


                 Enter Berowne.

  Bero. Whats her name in the capp?

  Boy. Katherin by good happ.                   710

  Ber, Is she wedded or no?

  Boy. To her will sir, or so.

  Ber. O you are welcome sir, adew.

  Boy. Farewell to me sir, and welcome to you.  Exit Bero.


[This sequence belongs to Dumaine but he has already made a mistaken appearance; there’s no one left but Berowne, who gets assigned to Katharine. This causes the errors at 609 – 23, which baffle editors.]  


  Lady Maria. That last is Berowne, the merrie madcap L.

    Not a word with him but a iest.            716

  Boy. And euery iest but a word.

  Prin. It was well done of you to take him at his word.

  Boy. I was as willing to grapple as he was to boord.

  Lady Ka. Two hot Sheepes marie.          720

  Bo. And wherefore not Shipps?

  No Sheepe (sweete Lambe) vnlesse we feede on your lippes.

  La. You Sheepe and I pasture: shall that finish the iest?

  Bo. So you graunt pasture for me.

  Lad. Not so gentle Beast.

  My lippes are no Common, though seuerall they be.

  Bo. Belonging to whom?

  La. To my fortunes and mee.              728

  Prin. Good witts will be iangling, but gentles agree,

This ciuill warre of wittes were much better vsed 

On Nauar and his Bookmen, for heere tis abused.

                (Q1, TLN 492 – 731)


These lines comprise the real crux, seems to me. They may have been the “First Cause.” 709 – 14 have no jests worth the term; the only such combat is between Berowne and Rosaline, which would probably not have been overheard by the Princess. The ladies who speak here may be misnamed but Boyet must deliver 722 (‘No sheep . . . unless we feed on your lips’), where we implies another man to make up the two burning ships. No one else is present as the Princess objects to the racy talk amongst themselves.


My typothesis (a guess I’ll say was a typo) is that before the speech ascriptions were “settled” some hot words spoken by Boyet and Berowne (in the presence of the ladies) were lost in transmission between ‘and welcome to you’ and ‘That last is Berowne.’ When some such exchange was omitted, Maria’s line identifying Berowne was applied in error to the prior dialogue meant to name Katharine to Dumain – then the dominos fell backward.


Quick Question: Women's Parts

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.434  Thursday, 23 October 2014


From:        Tom Bishop  <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:        October 19, 2014 at 5:54:13 PM EDT

Subject:    Quick Question


What is the earliest direct evidence we have for boys specifically playing women's parts in professional or popular theatre companies (rather than boy troupes associated with choirs, schools, or other private nonce or court events)?





CFP for Shakespeare Quarterly, Special Issue on Media

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.433  Thursday, 23 October 2014


From:        Douglas Lanier, <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:        October 7, 2014 at 4:39:42 PM EDT

Subject:    CFP for Shakespeare Quarterly, Special Issue on Media


CALL FOR PAPERS: Shakespeare Quarterly Special Issue

#Bard: Shakespeare and the History of Media

Guest Editor: Douglas M. Lanier, University of New Hampshire


From the printing of play quartos to the development of Shakespeare apps, the history of Shakespeare and the history of media have been intimately entwined in a feedback loop of considerable cultural and technological influence. And, with the emergence of each new media format, the objects of our study (poet, playwright, play text, promptbook, screenplay etc.) morph—sometimes unpredictably--into things both various and new.  


This special issue will investigate the myriad linkages between Shakespeare and the history of media with topics that might include the following: Shakespeare and the future of media; Shakespeare and media archaeology;  digital Shakespeare; Shakespeare data collection; Shakespeare, media, and the formation of community; Shakespeare and theater/movie/television technology; Shakespeare in 140 characters; Shakespeare and revisionist approaches to media history (post-McLuhan); Shakespeare as “transmedia” and “intermedial” artist; autopoietic Shakespeare; Shakespeare and the history of photographic and audio reproduction; Shakespearean mashups/samplings/applications;  Shakespeare and media theory.


We strongly encourage authors to consider selecting images, audio clips, and video clips to illustrate their articles. A gallery of these multimedia illustrations will be published on the Folger.edu web site. 


Send inquiries to Douglas Lanier at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or Gail Kern Paster at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..


Shakespeare in Popular Culture Area, SWPACA 2015

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.432  Thursday, 23 October 2014


From:        Jessica Maerz <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         October 6, 2014 at 4:52:59 PM EDT

Subject:    Shakespeare in Popular Culture Area, SWPACA 2015


CFP:  Southwest Popular/American Culture Association

Shakespeare in Popular Culture

Albuquerque, NM

Feb. 11-14, 2015


The Shakespeare in Popular Culture Area is now accepting proposals for the Southwest Popular / American Culture Association’s 36th annual conference, which will be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel and Conference Center in Albuquerque, NM. This year’s theme is “Many Faces, Many Voices: Intersecting Borders in Popular and American Culture.” We welcome proposals that engage with the overarching conference theme, as well as those that treat the convergence of Shakespeare, pop culture, and mediatization more broadly.


Potential topics might include: global Shakespeares; inter- and cross-cultural Shakespeares (and his contemporaries); Shakespearean auteurs; digital Shakespeares; screen Shakespeares; Shakespeare and the digital humanities; and postmodern Shakespeares.


Please submit a CV and 250 word proposal to conference2015.southwestpca.org by November 1, 2014. Inquiries may be directed to Area Chair Jessica Maerz at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..


Details about the conference, including information about conference travel and graduate student awards, and Dialogue, SWPACA’s new journal, can be found at www.southwestpca.org.


Jessica M. Maerz

Assistant Professor of Theatre Studies

School of Theatre, Film, and Television

University of Arizona


Job Posting: Hudson Strode Professor of English at University of Alabama

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 25.431  Thursday, 23 October 2014


From:        Jennifer Drouin <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

Date:         October 9, 2014 at 7:58:07 PM EDT 

Subject:    Job Posting: Hudson Strode Professor


Hudson Strode Professor of English at University of Alabama


The Department of English within the College of Arts & Science at The University of Alabama seeks a distinguished faculty member to serve as the Hudson Strode Professor of English and Director of the Hudson Strode Program in Renaissance Studies. The Strode Program focuses on intensive preparation of graduate students, and its private endowment provides for fellowships, lectures, and seminars in the literature of early modern Britain. PhD is required. The successful candidate will have a PhD in Renaissance literature and a record of excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service consistent with a tenured appointment as a full professor. As Hudson Strode Professor of English, the successful candidate will already have met the highest standards of scholarly and professional activity, primarily in Shakespeare studies, but also in the broader field of British Renaissance literature. The successful candidate will also have a proven record of organizational and administrative success. Please visit our website at http://english.ua.edu/ for more information about the Strode Program. Position begins 8/16/15.


The Hudson Strode Professor of English will serve as Director of the Hudson Strode Program in Renaissance Studies and is responsible for supervising the promotion and activities of the Program, including overseeing graduate recruitment and admissions; awarding fellowships and scholarships; planning and leading Strode seminars; and organizing lectures and symposia. The Director is expected to work closely with other faculty members interested in the early modern period.


Candidates for this position must visit the University of Alabama website at http://facultyjobs.ua.edu to initiate an application and upload various materials. The online application will include the following documents: A letter of application that includes descriptions of scholarly success in the field, teaching experience, and administrative experience and approach; Resume/Curriculum Vitae. A book or comparable work that best highlights your scholarly success, and four letters of recommendation, should be sent directly to the chair of the search committee, Professor Trudier Harris, Dept. of English, Box 870244, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0244. Review of applications will begin on October 1, 2014, and will continue until the position is filled. We expect to conduct preliminary interviews via telephone or videoconference and final interviews on campus. Prior to hiring, the final candidate will be required to pass a pre-employment background investigation.


The University of Alabama is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, genetic information, disability, or protected veteran status, and will not be discriminated against because of their protected status.


For more information or to apply, please go to https://facultyjobs.ua.edu/postings/36027


Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.