Draft of LLL paper

Sarah Landeen

Professor Gideon Burton

English 382

November 6, 2012

Title

In 1598, audiences gathered at the theater to delight in a new play. Printed on the title page of the quarto publication for the play were the words, “A pleasant conceited comedie called Loues labors lost. As it was presented before her Highnes this last Christmas. Newly corrected and augmented by W. Shakespere” (Gray). This was the first time William Shakespeare’s name appeared on one of his plays. Perhaps this was due to Shakespeare having created Love’s Labour’s Lost without borrowing from a familiar story (Shmoop). Still early in his career, Shakespeare had a lot at stake with this play. To lower chances of failure, he crafted an original idea, poured all his talents with words and writing into the script, and tested it out on a few early audiences—even Queen Elizabeth as mentioned in the above quarto. Some of these preparations worked in favor of the play while others worked against it. For example, Love’s Labour’s Lost is full of witty wordplay, but performing for a private party meant the play was full of inside jokes. Though later adapted for the stage, not all of the references meant for the premier audience could be erased from the script (Gray). Today we have 37 of Shakespeare’s plays and are able to see clearly the similarities and differences between each. Comparing the plays makes the oddities in Love’s Labour’s Lost stand out further, especially the ending. This paper will explore the ending of Love’s Labour’s Lost in its context of the play as well as historically to discover reasons for why it ended so unhappily, specifically coming to understand the effect of the premier audience which Shakespeare wrote the play for, and the uniqueness  of this play for being an original story by Shakespeare.

The ending of Love’s Labour’s Lost is unfitting because the play is categorized as a comedy. The play’s main storyline follows the characters of the King of Navarre and his three friends, Longaville, Dumain, and Biron. These four friends enter into an oath that for three years they will do nothing but study and will swear off women. As they discuss the details of their pact, it is remembered that the Princess of France is on her way to speak to the King, therefore the King must break his oath. When the Princess and her ladies arrive, however, all the King’s friends fall in love. This starts a mess of mixed up love notes, hypocritical accusations, disguises, vows of true love, and many other elements expected in a Shakespearian comedy. Yet in most plays by Shakespeare, the ending is happily ever after. In Love’s Labour’s Lost, all the labors of love performed by the character are, as the title spoils, lost. The Princess receives news that her father, the King died, and choses to go back to France with her ladies rather than stay with the King of Navarre. They assign each male character a task to perform to prove their love over the next year. If by then their feelings remain the same, the women agree to accept their offers of love. The characters themselves comment on the unresolved feeling the situation creates, but in the end they have no choice. The play ending without the marriage of the potential couples, the audience is left with a confusing mess of questions and disappointment. Shakespeare probably wanted his only play to be successful, so it is curious he would end the play in such an unhappy way.

Yet perhaps the play’s ending is not unhappy, but realistic. This could be due to the time period when Shakespeare wrote the play. Because the play was first performed for the queen in the winter of 1597, the play would have been written between 1593 and 1594; a time, Gray explains, when theaters were shut down due to an outbreak of the plague. He speculates that “he [Shakespeare] probably was not writing for the stage during 1593-1594, but this does not mean he did not write plays with a view to the theaters reopening or for the private entertainment of his aristocratic friends. In fact, it is often speculated that Love’s Labour’s Lost belongs to this period.” With the dead growing to over 10,000 in 1593 and no theaters to relieve the stress and depression, perhaps Shakespeare fell to the pressure of the times. The unresolved ending of one year until the lovers reunite could reference the abrupt ending of so many lives destroyed during this period of time. [continue to draw similarities between history and why that might cause Shakespeare to write an unhappy ending]

Many scholars have theorized that Shakespeare wrote Love’s Labour’s Lost to be performed for a private audience containing the Earl of Southampton. The relationship Shakespeare had with the earl is mostly hypothetical, but it could explain why Shakespeare could not write a happy ending in his play. At the same time Shakespeare wrote Love’s Labour’s Lost, he also wrote his 154 sonnets. Many ideas have been formed about Shakespeare because of theses sonnets. The first 126 sonnets reference what has been labeled the “lovely boy” due to sonnet 126. It is speculated that the “lovely boy” is meant to be the Earl of Southampton (Gamble). The content of the sonnet suggests a deep relationship between Shakespeare and Southampton, but a relationship that could never pass in society. Perhaps Shakespeare refused to give his characters a happy ending in Love’s Labour’s Lost because he was not granted a happy ending. [expand]

The reason for the unhappy ending could exist within the play itself. The concept of making and keeping oaths is a major issue in the play. At the end of the play the women all commit the men to new oaths with the promise of love as a reward for keeping them. Had the happy ending taken place, no lessons would be learned by the characters. They would have been rewarded for breaking their oats—not a good lesson to teach. By showing the consequences of broken promises, Shakespeare shows the importance of keeping one’s word. He also shows how careful one must be when committing to an oath. If one cannot keep the oath, it would be better not to make the oath at all. [find textual evidence and rework paragraph]

Perhaps the ending of Love’s Labour’s Lost could be better understood if it were attached to other famous plays by Shakespeare. If at the end of Much Ado About Nothing, one of Shakespeare’s most famous comedies, neither Benedict and Beatrice nor Claudio and Hero were married, the moral of the play would have greatly changed. [continue this line of thought, but possibly discard idea]

After fitting the ending of Love’s Labour’s Lost to other plays, it is only fair to search for possible resolutions in Love’s Labour’s Lost. First is to end the play in the tradition comedic fashion and marry the characters together. This is not a fitting ending because, as mentioned above, it counters the lessons the play is meant to teach. Another possibility is a sequel to the play. In 1953, Pottesman, a bookseller and antiquarian in London discovered a packing slip from 1603. The paper listed several plays by Shakespeare including marchant of vennis, taming of a shrew, loves labor lost, and loves labor won (Team Orange). [Expand on the story of this packing slip]

[Conclusion]