Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

12 results

  • The Nature of Topicality in Love’s Labour’s Lost
  • Edited by Stanley Wells
  • Book: Shakespeare Survey
  • Published online: 28 March 2007
  • Print publication: 09 January 1986, pp 49-60
  • View extract

    Summary

    Love’s Labour’s Lost remains something of an anomaly among Shakespeare’s plays. Of all his comedies, this one is still often perceived as narrowly aristocratic, an obscure piece of coterie drama never truly intended to appeal to a general audience. This view has been formed by the massive commentary on the play’s references to the Harvey–Nashe controversy, Raleigh’s supposed ‘School of Night’, and other ‘topical puzzles’ still referred to, often in passing or in footnotes, by even the best and most recent scholarship. A re-examination of existing evidence about the probable original audience for Love’s Labour’s Lost casts grave suspicions on the kind of topicality understood only by Renaissance courtiers. Yet topicality itself cannot be altogether dismissed in a play for which the major male characters – the King of Navarre, Boyet, Marcade, Armado, Moth, Berowne, Longaville, and Dumain – were all named after military leaders then waging a civil war in France. In this essay, I argue that Love’s Labour’s Lost was no more or less ‘aristocratic’ in appeal than Shakespeare’s other earlier plays, that what topicality it possesses was available to a wide audience, and that, finally, we need to revise our way of looking at topicality at least in Love’s Labour’s Lost and perhaps in other plays, as well.