Textual criticisms of Love's Labour's Lost
Laura Holtz '01

A survey of textual criticisms made in the past twenty years of Love's Labour's Lost consistently shows that plays printed from Shakespeare's foul papers are marked by uncertainties and contradictions. However, critic's ideas explaining why this occurred are varied. According to one critic, it is because they reproduce the thoughts of the author in the act of creation and represent the movement of Shakespeare's imagination shaping a story line (Kerrigan 129). One alternate theory to the textual inconsistencies comes from Barbara Mowat. She points out that eighteen of Shakespeare's plays were printed during his lifetime, but that the playwright took little interest in their publication. These eighteen appeared separately in editions called Quartos. Their pages were approximately 4"x 8" and were sold unbound for a few pence. The earliest know Quarto was printed in 1594 and while almost all of the title pages of the early Quartos list the name of the acting company that performed the play, only half provide the name of the playwright (li). Recent research has focused on computer assisted examinations of typesetters' spelling habits in the printing houses in which the first Folio and the Love's Labour's Lost First Quarto were set into type. This has indicated that both these early printed versions may have been made from copies of the lost printed text thought to predate the first Quarto (lii).

Love's Labour's Lost continues to be problematic as both the Quarto and Folio contain many brief passages in corrupt Latin. Among editors of modern texts, difficulty exists concerning how to treat this issue. Are they to be understood as jokes at the expense of the characters? Would such jokes have been appreciated by audiences of that time? Or are they printers' errors that should be corrected? Confusion is also noted in both the first Quarto and first Folio concerning the identification of roles both in speech prefixes and in dialogue. These are the roles of Rosaline and Katherine and of Holofernes and Nathaniel (liv). The majority of criticisms are made of Act Two, most notably the confusion regarding the matching of Rosaline and Katherine with Berowne and Dumaine.

Most modern texts are molded by the theory that Shakespeare intended to pair Berowne with Rosaline and Dumaine with Katherine, but in his original draft he deliberately confused the situation by having the women masked when they met the men. Berowne wooed a masked Katherine before moving onto Rosaline (also masked) and only Boyet's identification of Katherine revealed to Berowne that his first advances had been to the wrong woman. But the theory continues that Shakespeare eventually decided to delay the masking until Act Five, which meant that he had to revise the earlier act. The two changes involved canceling the conversations between Berowne and the masked women and the name in Boyet's reply to Berowne's question needed to be Rosaline, not Katherine. Were the alterations made at all? Were the markings too light to be recognized? (Kerrigan 131).

After carefully explaining this theory, Kerrigan states that he finds it unconvincing. It implies that Shakespeare originally intended to introduce masked cross-wooing very early in the play- too early Kerrigan argues, for the audience to have figured out what the true pairings were meant to be. He also doubts that the women were disguised. The statements "faire befall your maske" and "faire fall the face it covers" show that Katherine's face is covered at the moment, but does not provide conclusive evidence that it had been covered since the arrival of the men. Furthermore, there is no hint of masking before the men enter, which exists prior to the masking episode in Act Five (132). Kerrigan concludes that the second act finishes with a sense of the women which is almost as elusive as when it began. Given this vague sense of the female characters, it is easily understood that new parings emerged which were in opposition to the first. Berowne is paired with Rosaline and Dumaine with Katherine. He points out that the names, much more than the characters are in transition. The good news is that the basics of the play remain unchanged, just a little muddled. Kerrigan seems hesitant to criticize Shakespeare as an author and praises the dramatic accomplishments of the work although admits a few details were overlooked (135).

Another criticism of Shakespeare's intratextual revision, made by Kenneth Steele, similarly focuses on Act Two. Again, it is mentioned that Shakespeare's own priority was the stage, not the study (1). The title page of the Quarto to Love's Labour's Lost indicates it is "newly corrected and augmented by William Shakespeare," although it remains unclear if the text maintains corrections of the original process or revision for later performance. Steele downplays the textual inconsistencies, calling them "textual treasures" but does point out these treasures take the form of false starts, ghost characters and factual contradictions. The list continues, citing inconsistent speech prefixes (sometimes missing altogether) and multiple designations for the same character (4).

Only a few characters are consistently identified in the First Quarto- the three lords of Navarre, Boyet, and three minor characters. The speech prefixes for all other characters switch between several alternatives, suggesting that several drafts exist which reveal the composition of the play. For example, Dull, Costard, Armado, Nathaniel, and Holofernes are most frequently identified by their functions in the First Quarto (Constable, Clown, Braggart, Curate and Pendant.) In the first scene, Dull and Costard are initially identified by their function but they introduce themselves by name in dialogue (5). This evidence of name switching suggests that Shakespeare preferred function names. It also seems possible this change in speech prefixes shows some time passed between the writing of the first and second sections of the scene (6).

The four foul paper plays (Titus Andronicus, Love's Labour's Lost, Romeo and Juliet, and A Midsummer Night's Dream) contain many revisions for inconsistencies and repetitions. There may have been intentional repetition or alternate options that Shakespeare left to be decided in stage rehearsal. These problems may help identify passages that were written out of their published order (Steele 22). There is a valid argument for editors of the second act to do two things: fill in speech prefixes that are lacking a name and reverse Rosaline and Katherine.

Another critic to share these concerns is Stanley Wells. He agrees the worst errors are concentrated in Act Two, mostly the confusion regarding which of the women is being wooed by Berowne and which by Dumaine. He does point out that the reminder of the play makes it clear and this temporary mystery is put to rest (137).

Wells feels it is universally agreed that a copy of the 1598 Quarto was used by compositors that set up the next edition of the play, in the Folio of 1623. They followed the Quarto in many errors, but they departed from it too, he points out (138). The term foul papers itself implies recognition that another manuscript, in a more complete state, must have existed. The possibilities are these: the author himself made a copy, cleaning up the play as he went along and this was used as a prompt book; the author made a copy which was transcribed by someone else; or someone else managed to make sense of the foul papers, transcribing and editing them, perhaps with the authors assistance (139).

Although the majority of criticisms encountered related to textual inconsistencies, there is brief mention of other topics. One critic praises Love's Labour's Lost for opening the door to a new greatness, as it deals with attempt to defeat time and death as a lyric play. There is also credit given to Shakespeare for a "copious outpouring of verbal delight." Love's Labour's Lost is compared to other lyrical plays (A Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo and Juliet and Richard II), also written during the middle decade years (Daniell 107).

Through this research I have realized that even when Shakespeare is given credit as the author, he may not be responsible for how the text was printed. I'm certain he knew with which men he wanted to pair the women and though it seemed obvious, his corrections to the original draft were so lightly marked it was easily overlooked by a printer that was unfamiliar with the plot or negligent with his proofreading. These uncertainties lead a reader of this play to question what Shakespeare intended to appear in the text. How would he respond to what has become the modern text of this play? As a reader, I take what I have learned through this research to interpret this play with some skepticism, but also with forgiveness of oversights that were not necessarily the fault of the author. As Shakespeare has made us realize, human error can be tragic. Luckily, in this case it could be, at worst, annoying to a reader unfamiliar with the textual inconsistencies.

Works Cited
Daniell, David. "Shakespeare and the traditions of comedy." The Cambridge Companion To Shakespeare Studies. Ed. Stanley Wells. Cambridge University Press, 1986. 101-141.

Kerrigan, John. "Shakespeare at work: the Katherine -Rosaline tangle in Love's Labour's Lost." Review of English Studies. 33 (1982) 129-136.

Mowat, Barbara, and Paul Werstine, eds. Introduction. Love's Labour's Lost. By William Shakespeare, New York: Washington Square Press, 1996.

Steele, Kenneth B. "Leaden Contemplation: Ambiguous Evidence of Revision in Q1 Love's Labour's Lost." http://daphne.palomar.edu/shakespeare/playcriticism.htm#LLL. (November 1, 2000).

Wells, Stanley. "The copy for the Folio text of Love's Labour's Lost." Review of English Studies. 33 (1982) 137-147.8

[ Home ] [ Literary Influences ] [ Cultural/Historical Influences ] [ Textual/Performance History ]
[ Critical History ] [ Web Resources ] [ Site Information ]