Shaky's Comedy Titles

[shaxper]

I've never given them much thought until now.  It's always been obvious that strong titles were never a major selling point in Renaissance England (every Tragedy is "The Most Lamentable Tragedy of (insert main character"), but Shaky's comedy titles seem like they're not even trying.  I suppose Love's Labor Lost, Much Ado About Nothing, and All's Well that Ends Well say something about the play, but then there's As You Like It, Twelfth Night, Or What You Will, and even The Merchant of Venice is incredibly non-descript and misleading.  Johnson wrote "The Alchemist".  Middleton wrote "A Chaste Maid in Cheapside".  Massinger wrote "A New Way to Pay Old Debts".  So was Shaky just bad with titles, or is there something more to this?

[nolablue]

Hey man, titles are /hard/. In some ways titles are more agonizing than even trying to create a character. You try summarizing one of Shakespeare's plays in 5 words or less and see what you come up with! Besides, after reading critic after critic kill themselves trying to figure out who was the changeling in "The Changeling", I came to appreciate the simplicity of Shakespeare's titles (or lack of titles).

[Ganymede]

If you think about it, As You Like It is a perfect title.  Rosalind's prologue basically tells the audience to take him/her as they want to take her - "If I were a woman... If I were a man..."  

Twelfth Night refers to the topsy-turvy time of carnival or festival that usually occurred during Twelfth Night.  While the play itself does not take place on Twelfth Night, much of the plot hinges on disguise, which was part of a celebration like Twelfth Night.  Sir Toby is also a "Lord Of Misrule" type character.  In addition, many scholars believe that the play had been performed during Twelfth Night, which would have been the title apropos at the time (Shaky probably wasn't thinking about what audiences or readers would be thinking years down the line.)  As for the tag, "What You Will," I think that has a similar meaning to As You Like It.  Twelfth Night's ending is very ambiguous.  Perhaps the title refers to the different ways audience members may interpret it-- in whatever way they want to.  Also, "will" has a double meaning.  I believe it refers to genitalia.  Considering that much of the plot hinges on the sex of its characters, the title seems sort of appropriate to me.  

I think the titles are subtle more than revealing.  Maybe that's why many people have trouble with them.  They don't exactly describe the play for those who have never seen or read them, but once you HAVE read them, you begin to understand.  

[shaxper]

Good point on As You Like It.  I'm familiar with the background of Twelfth Night, but it still seems like a cop-out to me.  The play was performed on Twelfth Night so it dealt with the revelries and Shaky, short on a title, called it Twelfth Night.  We can read more into both As You Like It and Twelfth Night, but I can't help but think we're creating meaning where there is none by doing so.  The purpose of a title is to sell a work.  You call something The Tragedy of Richard II to attract fans of tragedy, fans of history, and people who are familiar with the story of Richard II.  Even "The Comedy of Errors" suggests a fun play based upon confusion, and "All's Well That Ends Well" promises (perhaps falsely) a light-hearted play that will end happily.  

As poigniant as "As You Like It" may turn out to be, I can't believe Shaky chose that title for the few educated folks who'd see the play twice and figure out the secondary meanings (if anyone in that time would have).  Twelfth Night, I suppose, didn't really need a title since it was commissioned to be performed during the festivities, and thus wasn't relying on advertising nor individual ticket sales.  I'm not familiar with the background of As You Like It's first performance, but perhaps it was a similar circumstance, in which there was no reason for Shaky to devote much effort on creating a title.  It's even possible that these were "mystery" plays without titles, and a later editor assigned the titles that we're now familiar with.  I suppose we'd need to research the sources of these plays to know for sure.  I'm at work right now and don't have my reference materials with me, but I'd be curious to know if either Twelfth Night or As You Like It had Quarto editions that have survived.  If they have only been seen in the Folio editions, the titles may very well have been added later.

[shaxper]

Some interesting finds here.  I checked up on that info about the sources for As You Like It and Twelfth Night, as well as the circumstances behind their performances.  On the one hand, the title As You Like It appears in both The Station's Register and The First Folio (it appears nowhere else, has no other sources, and no information about its first performance exists).  However, on the other hand, Twelfth Night, when performed a second time in 1623, was entitled "Malvolio" and appears under that name in the Second Folio, as well.  It also only has a Folio source.

So perhaps we're both correct, Ganymede.  Maybe As You Like It was a carefully chosen name, but Twelfth Night was just a cop-out and What You Will may have been one of several alternate working titles.  

[Ganymede]

Unfortunately, we may not know enough about the intricate interworkings of language during Shaky's time to truly settle this.  Personally, I feel that while the double meanings hinted at in the titles of both plays may be too subtle for today's average reader/viewer, back in Shaky's time, such phrases as As You Like It or What You Will may have been commonly used.  They could even have meanings that we have not discovered.  

In terms of Twelfth Night, I still believe that while the title may have referred to when it was first performed, it also refers 1) to the cross-dressing in the play and 2) to Sir Toby and his festival-like tendencies to drink to excess and generally misbehave.  Both cross-dressing and revelry would have been commonly associated to times of festival (like Twelfth Night) during Shaky's time.  

To me, considering that he put so much time into the plays themselves, it's hard for me to see him flippantly giving a play a title that didn't suit it in some way.  I guess it's just a matter of opinion, since neither of us can go back in time and ask Shaky himself.  (But wouldn't it be fun if we did?  I'd love to go without a bath for a year.  And all the lice!  Yum! )

[N.N.W]

[glow=red,2,300] Other factors to be taken into consideration are the financial factors - most advertising and promotion would have been done by business men with little grasp of theatre or any artistic bent (...hmmm... nothing changes there then...) Also a lot of the time a commisioned piece would be promoted and advertised (initially for financial backers)long before the piece would be finished - or even started - it takes months to secure venues, performers, money, and once an idea has been sold, its kinda tricky to get away from that...    [/glow]

[shaxper]

I could see that being the case.  However, in terms of venues and actors, the majority of Shakespeare's plays were performed by the same ongoing troupe at the same theatre(s).  As I understand it, they were usually performing one play for the public, rehersing the next one while the playwright wrote it, and (on occasion) performing a third older play for wealthy patrons.

It's still an excellent question though.  Were these titles selected by Shakespeare, the company owner(s), or an early choice by Shakespeare before he could be sure how the play would flesh out?  I'd be curious to know.

[N.N.W]

[glow=red,2,300] Loathe as I am to state 'Shakespeare in Love' as a resource, Tom Stoppard is an undeniably thorough researcher and playwrite, with an established reputation for having a certain amount of insight into WS works (you have to know your material inside and out to satyrise anything, let alone something as critically dissected as WS works) Its a safe bet that his portrayal of Elisabethan society is pretty near the mark. [/glow]

[shaxper]

For the most part. yes, but he did take some creative liberties, as well. The largest that comes to mind is Henslowe. Henslowe kept detailed records, and Shakespeare never worked for him (unless he made an omission). Likewise, Twelfth Night is not a tragedy about two lovers separated at sea. But both served his purpose as a storyteller. Oh, and Ethel, The Pirate's Daughter??

But yes, I think most of his portrayal of how a production came into being was very accurate, especially having the play promised and in rehersal before Shakespeare had finished it.


(Good to see you back, N.N.W.!)

[Harry]

In 1592, Henslowe recorded the performance of "harry vi. This was probably the play we know as Henry VI, Part I. It was the hit of the season. After the Henry VI plays, Shakespeare seems to have moved to the competition and began his association with Burbage and the Lord Chamberlain's/King's Men. So, when Shakespeare was writing "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter" he was a partner with Burbage and not working for Henslowe.

I agree that, although much of Shakespeare in Love is very inaccurate historically, the look and feel of Elizabethan London and theater seems about right.