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]
