Love’s Labour’s Lost: Sincere Love is Not Based on Words Alone

In "Love’s Labour’s Lost" Shakespeare satirizes the love story between four sets of royals. The characters are merely types, stagnant figures through which Shakespeare presents his comedic theme of sincere love vs. artificial wooing. The men represent impractical, shallow wooers who profess false declarations of love. The women, by contrast, depict wise and practical beings who see past language, and consequently, understand the true nature of affection. The play is possibly Shakespeare’s clearest portrayal of language, bursting with puns, rhymes, peculiar syntax, fantastic coinages, and parody. In the overlapping patterns we see through love, rhetoric, reputation, wit, and education, Shakespeare mocks the conventions of romantic love while advocating a more realistic and truthful approach to courtship that goes beyond language. Thus, through the opposite characterization of the sexes and their unique understanding of language, Shakespeare argues that lasting unions cannot be based on superficial words, but rather, sincere love is proven through actions.

The outlook on love, in Shakespeare’s day, was more practical than it had ever been before. To understand the extent of Shakespeare’s mockery of impractical love, as critic Neal Goldstein points out, one must understand what led up to the Renaissance opinion of love. In early medieval times love was idealized to the point that it was considered by many to unobtainable. Goldstein quotes Petrarch in saying, “There is an implicit, and often explicit, identity in medieval love poetry, between divine love and secular love, between the love of God and the love of a lady” (336). Medieval literature was filled with the tales of exalted, spiritualized women whose fallible suitors were too lowly to approach their greatness. The love of a lady, in essence, was akin to the love of God.

Shakespeare mocks this concept of divine affection through the men’s less than sincere love sonnets. Each of the men, in turn, use heavenly rhetoric to both profess and defend the lust they feel for the women, though they certainly wouldn’t admit to such a ruse. Dumaine croons, “That the lover, sick to death/ Wish himself the heaven’s breath” (IV.iii.105-6). Longaville exclaims, “A woman I forswore, but I will prove/ Thou being a goddess, I forswore not thee/ My vow was earthly, thou a heavenly love…” (IV.iii.59-61). Here, Longaville comically explains that he swore to stay away from women, not goddesses, and therefore, his attempt at wooing is not shameful. Berowne continues in the same fashion, “Celestial as thou art, O pardon, love, this wrong/ That sings heaven’s praise with such an earthly tongue” (IV.ii.111-12). Berowne pretends to exalt his chosen woman, though in actuality, Shakespeare uses the men’s divine rhetoric to highlight the hypocrisy of such a method. The men are in love with none other than themselves. The synonymia of their sonnets makes it clear to the reader that the men don’t love the women, they lust after them. From the content of the sonnets alone, one can neither predict who the author is nor which of
the women it is intended for. While each displays different word choice, each sonnet has the same meaning, the same definition of women, and the same artificial, idealistic approach to love.

This era of spiritualization soon gave way to a more physical or tangible interpretation of love. Goldstein quotes Ficino in saying, “Human love is a microcosm of divine love…earthly love does not stand in the way of heavenly love, but rather is a necessary step toward it”. Though spiritual love was now obtainable, physical love was demonized. Ficino continues, “The man who envisions sensual love as the final step in the process of loving is no better than a beast” (338). Sensuality, a departure from divinity, was considered a weakness. Renaissance love, the love that Shakespeare mocks, is a combination of the spiritual and physical views of affection. It asserts that the physical love of a woman is divine. During Shakespeare’s day, this concept of the language of love was often satirized and mocked as artificial love. Hence, the depiction of the men in Love’s Labour’s Lost as being hypocritical, lusty men. The incongruence of what the men say and what they actually mean is portrayed as the typical outcome of fake love. Thus, the men’s Renaissance or divine ways of woo were thought to be nothing more than superficial foolery.

The men are so caught up in their own narrow view of intelligence that they fail to grasp the women’s definition of knowledge. Their claims on wit, however, are noted by the women. Longaville “is a sharp wit match’d with too blunt a will” (II.i.49). Dumaine “has wit to make an ill shape good/ And shape to win grace though he had no wit” (II.i.59-60). Lastly, Rosaline says of Berowne, “His eye begets occasion for his wit” (II.i.69). These are the wits, however, possessed by men of study, and have no claim on the real world or real love. Because of this, their wits, while acknowledged by the women, are rudely mocked because of their narrow view (Lennam 55). The Princess ventures so far as to ask, “Are these the breed of wits so wondered at?” (V.ii.267). Or in other words, though these men may be technically educated and viewed as scholars, they are not learned in the correct ways of love, according to Shakespeare’s definition.

To the men, the definition of wit is the ability to speak and understand elevated language. They are arrogant creatures who seek the respect of other men. When Berowne asks the king what the purpose of their studies will be, he responds, “…to know what else we should not know” (I.i.56). Berowne clarifies this to mean “things hid and barred from common sense” (I.i.57). It is selfishness which drives them in their passions. The men think conventions give words meaning. Words are a means of manipulation, a tool with which they show off and get what they want. For the men, there is a rift between spirit and body, between inner and outer senses. They deny the workings of their hearts in return for the outward face of fame. The women, however, understand the true essence of love. Critic Thomas M. Greene writes, “Although they are as quick to admire as the four gentlemen, they are slower to think they are falling in love” (317). This is Shakespeare’s way of showing that the women view love as something beyond language. The women are practical, prudent, and wise, the demonstrators of how true love should be approached.

Because the men base merit on reputation, they foolishly seek to woo the women through empty flattery (Roesen 415). Aware of the men’s vanity, the Princess rejects the king’s superficial compliments. She declares, “Good Lord Boyet, my beauty, though but mean/ Needs not the painted flourish of your praise…I am less proud to hear you tell my worth/ Then you much willing to be counted wise/ In spending your wit in the praise of mine” (II.i.13-19). She comically points out that his speech, though on surface level praises her, is actually a means through which the king can highlight his own wit. Greene points out, “She refuses coolly to be hoodwinked by the flattery her station conventionally attracts, with an acuteness which sets off the foolish egotism of the king” (316). To the women, words are actions that show intent, character, and judgment. Words are mirrors of a man’s soul. Thus, through such contrasting view points, Shakespeare advocates the literal and pure approach to courtship, while mocking the Renaissance view of romantic love, a love based on words alone.

Shakespeare’s ultimate mockery of Renaissance love is portrayed through the Masque of the Muscovites. Here, the men pretend to possess the purest form of love, when in actuality, the only thing they love is the women’s physical beauty. Just as the men decide to hide behind idealistic conventions, the women decide to hide behind masks, knowing realistically that the men only know them by their physical appearance. Without markers visible to the eye, none of the courtiers of Navarre is able to recognize his beloved and each swears his undying love to the wrong woman (Westland 42). Berowne, believing he is talking to Rosaline, asks the scheming princess, “White-handed mistress, one sweet word with thee.” To which she mockingly replies, “Honey and milk and sugar: there is three.” (V.ii.239-40). She mocks the empty slogans that Berowne foolishly uses to woo her. Speaking of these conventions, Greene writes, “The images of each, had become by Shakespeare’s day mere counters, mere comic slogans” (333). Just as the women in the play, the people in Shakespeare’s day mocked the “sweet words” of romantic love and understood them as being just for show. Though the men don’t yet realize it, words have little effect on love if they are not accompanied by actions.

When the women reveal their mockery to the men, Berowne vows, “O, never will I trust to speeches penned…Nor woo in rhyme, like a blind harper’s song/ Taffeta phrases, silken terms precise, three-piled hyperboles, spruce affectation…I do forswear them!” (V.ii.425-33). The listing of wordy, ridiculous sounding terms heightens the silliness of them. And even Berowne, to a certain extent, recognizes the foolishness in hiding behind these conventions. He attempts to atone for his inadequate behavior by swearing, “Henceforth my wooing mind shall be in russet yeas and honest kersey noes” (V.ii.435-6). Thus, we see a transition from romanticism to realism and the beginnings of the realization that sincere love does not stem from superficial words.

In this sense, the women are teachers to the men, the true educators of the play. The men live in a sort of fantasy world where they are detached from their words (Hoy 33). They live in their books and thrive under what they consider to be true wit with no regard for consequences. By the end of the play, it is clear that Shakespeare’s definition of true education mirrors that of true love: the essence of each is not found through words, but through actions. As Rosaline prepares to leave, she gives Berowne this advice: “Therefore, if you my favour mean to get/ A twelvemonth shall you spend and never rest/ But seek the weary beds of people sick” (V.ii.843-4). While a seemingly random request, Rosaline’s insistence that Berowne serve the sick for a year is one last reiteration that his words cannot prove his love. The women understand, as does the reader, that the adage “actions speak louder than words” is a moral concept that the men have failed to glean from their book studies. Rosaline requires that Berowne look beyond himself and physically care for another person. She wisely understands that because he has never experienced the consequences of his words, he cannot know that true meaning is found in action. Because there is no union in the end, Shakespeare proves his argument that lasting love cannot be attained through artificial words. Through the play’s patterns of love, rhetoric, reputation, wit, and education, Shakespeare shows that sincere love does not come by words alone, but is accompanied by actions, the ultimate test of true love.

Works Cited
Goldstein, Neal. “’Love’s Labour’s Lost’ and the Renaissance Vision of Love.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 25, No 3. (1974): 335-50.
Greene, Thomas M. “’Love’s Labour’s Lost:’ The Grace of Society.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 22, No 4. (1971): 315-28.
Hoy, Cyrus. “’Love’s Labour’s Lost’ and the Nature of Comedy.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 13, No 1. (1962): 31-40.
Lennam, Trevor. “The Ventricle of Memory: Wit and Wisdom in ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost.’” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 24, No 1. (1973): 54-60.
Roesen, Bobbyann. “Love’s Labour’s Lost.” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 4, No 4. (1953): 411-26.
Westland, Joseph. “Fancy and Achievement in ‘Love’s Labour’s Lost.’” Shakespeare Quarterly. Vol 18, No 1. (1967): 37-46.