In Henry V and again in Love's Labours Lost, Shakespeare uses the term
"sweet chuck".  It appears to be a term of affection.  Is that the
case?  I'd appreciate a little background on this unusual term.

Dear paul4peace,

In Shakespeare's times, "chuck" was indeed a term of endearment. The
use of "chuck" to express affection appears considerably less strange
when translated to modern English: "Chuck" is an ancient variant of
"chicken", which can be easily understood as a word expressing
endearment still today. Knowing that, the term "sweet chuck" explains
itself.

The word is listed in "The Hallamshire Glossary" by Joseph Hunter
(1811) as follows:

"CHUCK. This word has various significations, not referable to the
same root. It is a chicken; a term of endearment: 'Be innocent of the
knowledge, dearest chuck / Till thou applaud the deed.' Macbeth,
III.2."

It is similarly explained in a 1793 edition of "Love's Labour's Lost":

"chuck, i.e. chicken; an ancient term of endearment. So, in 'Macbeth':
'Be innocent of the knowledge, dearest chuck-'"

The term has not even completely vanished, according to Michael
Quinion, who wrote in 2003:

"It survives as an endearment in some parts of Britain today, such as
Yorkshire and Liverpool, the latter having the vowel pronounced to my
ear part-way towards chook (and I?m told that chook is known from
various dialects)."


Hope this answers your question!
Regards,
Scriptor


Sources:

"The Hallamshire Glossary" by Joseph Hunter (1811), p.21-22 (Google Print)
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=0Fl0MHC13bmv18Lf6o&id=87tY7YWWwhgC&dq=chuck+chicken+endearment&lpg=PA21&pg=PA21
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=0Fl0MHC13bmv18Lf6o&id=87tY7YWWwhgC&dq=chuck+chicken+endearment&lpg=PA21&pg=PA22

The Plays of William Shakspeare, Volume the Fifth (1793), p. 309 (Google Print)
http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=0HmYbYG8GnXi2cBhX1SgDYG&id=Np0RdLJ2-oIC&pg=PA309&lpg=PA309&dq=chuck+chicken+endearment

World Wide Words: Chook
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-cho2.htm

A very thorough answer.  Just what I was looking for!