A Wealth of Irony

Author: David Webb

Thomas Betterton as Hamlet. 1709. Wikimedia Commons. Accessed April 8, 2018. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Betterton_as_Hamlet.jpg

In his comedy Love’s Labour’s Lost, William Shakespeare offers an interesting relationship between class and wit, or intelligence, and how people always try to flaunt those qualities in order to positively affect their roles in society. Shakespeare’s position, as evidenced in the play, is that there is nothing necessarily special about the noble class that makes them more intelligent than the rest of the general public. Furthermore, no amount of performance or self-aggrandizement in the face of others can actually increase your intelligence. In other words, aristocrats may try and leverage their social position into something spectacular, but in the end, they’re just as human as the rest of us.

The very premise at the beginning of the play is based around the yearning to supposedly become more intelligent. Yet, as we find out from reading the rest of the comedy, these lofty goals are quite far from the reality of the characters proposing them. All their great proclamations and binding oaths—with terribly cruel punishments supporting them—melt away as soon as they’re put into practice as if they had never existed. It’s very easy, especially for the nobility of the time, to pretend that their greatest passion is the pursuit of knowledge, and instead all the while pursuing social capital and all things involving the opposite sex. Berowne foreshadows that this will be the eventual course of action for all men at the beginning of the play (LLL 1.132, 1.148), and in fact he turns out to be correct. For all the rhetorical huffing and puffing of the King and his lords, they find themselves breaking the oaths that they so arrogantly forced upon each other. Each denies his infidelity, in fact, up until the very moment he is caught (LLL 7.1116, 7.1120, 7.1140, 7.1198).

The page and the braggart throughout the play have several interesting interactions, in which the Braggart often commends the boy’s knowledge and intelligence. When asked how he became so bright, the Page simply says he’s experienced (LLL 4.640). He’s learned from living. This is another important message from Shakespeare, that life experience makes a person more intelligent than simple forced study does. He’s also commenting to say that members of the noble class probably haven’t had as many life experiences as someone of a lower class would have. And the ones that they do have, they quickly forget. (LLL 4.645) They may sit in their lavish courts and wait for their servants to obey their commands, but they’ve never done or created anything meaningful themselves, so when there comes a problem in their personal lives, they have no solution but to ask the opinions of their more experienced servants.

Shakespeare toys with the question of relative intelligence through more differences than just class. Many people interpret the interaction between the disguised ladies and lords through the lens of modern feminism, where the gender roles of the time are reversed, in an attempt to shock the play’s audience of the time. That idea is slightly misguided, and the juxtaposition is more so one of noble arrogance, where the men feel entitled to whatever they want because they believe that they’ve acted so intelligently and courtly toward the ladies. There is then a reversal where the women have actually outsmarted the men, despite their lack of proclamation of a passion for study and knowledge. The claims of the pseudo-intellectuals have once again failed, and so has the idea of the link between nobility, social status, or gender relating to relative intelligence. This charade of disguises doesn’t drastically affect the plot of the play, so it can be reasoned that Shakespeare’s message is in this interaction alone. Again, the play showcases how nobody is inherently special in any society when it comes to base qualities such as intelligence. Just as the rich are no smarter than the poor, men are no smarter than women.

People lie, people feign, and people give up on their proclamations when they take sight of the next shiny object to bolster their social reputation. In Love’s Labour’s Lost, Shakespeare expertly draws into the light the true humanity that lies underneath every mask worn by the aristocratic class. In the end, through the glamour, we find that people are people, no matter what they may try to put themselves out to be. These detrimental human qualities tend not to be avoided—but rather amplified perhaps—by those participating in the noble class of Shakespeare’s time.

Devotion or Delusion: Love vs Infatuation

Author: Elizabeth Carroll

 

Tobler, Robert F. “The American Falls and the Bridal Veil Falls of the Niagara Falls in the USA from Skylon Tower on May 28, 2002”. 5/28/02. Wikimedia Commons. Accessed 4/3/18. Robert F. ToblerOwn work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

So often people think that they are experiencing love, but many times what they are feeling is actually infatuation. It can be hard to discern the difference. Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost and Queen Marguerite of Navarre’s The Heptameron explore this difference through their characters’ attempts to make sense of what love is, what it should be, and what its limitations are. Through their romantic antics, readers are able to peer into the truest motivations of lovers and the disasters that ensue when infatuation is left unchecked.

In Love’s Labour’s Lost, we learn that love makes people fools. The king and his men consider themselves to be extremely intelligent, as proved by their flashy vow of devotion to study for three years while fasting, not sleeping, and not seeing women.  They do this not out of true love of knowledge, but out of a desire to be famous and well-known for their devotion to academics. At the start of the play when the king is introducing the rules of their three-year endeavor, he proclaims: “Let fame, that all hunt after in their lives, Live registered upon our brazen Tombs” (2-3). The motivation of the king and his men to take such an extreme vow is not out of love for study itself, but rather out of concern for their images and for their ideas of themselves.

When Berowne is about to overhear Dumaine’s love poem, his aside reveals the purpose and message of the whole play: “Once more I’ll mark how love can vary Wit” (1089). As the play progresses, we see that the men do not survive the very first temptation to break their vow, and that each in turn has fallen in love with the Princess or one of her women. They took the vow originally hoping to gain honor and a reputation of intelligence. Instead, they revealed themselves to be fools. Their credibility is immediately shattered.  The men, all found guilty by one another, bemoan their circumstances as wise people who have had the misfortune of falling in love (1274-1369).  They are made into fools yet again by the princess and her women when they trick the men by switching their gifts to confuse them.  The king and his men are all punished repeatedly for their infatuation with the women, but also for their infatuation with fame and intelligence.

The men are not the only characters at fault here, however.  The princess and her women ask them to prove their love by various acts of charity for isolation. These requests for proof of love is a theme that also appears in The Heptameron. In story eighteen, the lady tests her lover first by withholding anything more than kisses. When he is “happy to wait in patience” for the lady, she is not satisfied. Her insecurity drives her to test him again with the temptation of another woman. When he discovers that she does not trust his love enough to believe him on his word, he becomes heartbroken and angry. He leaves and does not come back for a long time, and the woman realizes her error.

Both the women in Love’s Labour’s Lost and the woman in story eighteen decide that words and promises are not proof enough.  If two people are truly in love, however, there should be no tests of endurance needed.  What these women are feeling could probably be better described as infatuation. Infatuation is a priority shift, but not in the same way as love is.  In the case of love, the lover puts someone ahead of themselves wholly and completely.  In the case of infatuation, this priority shift happens for the wrong reasons.  Actions of infatuation are not motivated by selflessness, but rather selfishness. Love is giving of  oneself whereas infatuation is taking for oneself.

Love in these two renaissance works of fiction show love to be something that makes once reasonable people mindless and impulsive.  In story twenty-one of The Heptameron, love is described as an “assault”; In Love’s Labour’s Lost, as “blinding” (1215). Love can lead people to do things that do not make sense. Flying halfway around the world to see one person for a few days does not make sense financially or logistically, but people do it all the time. However, love is not craziness, it is understanding, where infatuation is uncertainty and a craving for proof and reason. Love is not quite craziness. It is more like faith. It is a matter of trust. If a person needs love to be proven to them, then that trust is missing.  Love, like trust, happens between two people, whereas infatuation is more of a one-sided hope.

Love is so rare and so universal that people tell stories about it.  Artists express it in art, singers express it in song, and writers, like Shakespeare and Queen Marguerite, express it in writing.  No matter its motivation or its degree of purity, an instance of true love (or even an incident of infatuation) is remarkable enough to share with the world. It is the force that carried humankind to where we stand today. It’s sublime and deadly, like Niagara Falls or a forest fire. It quite literally creates people and destroys others. In story twenty-one of The Heptameron, the lover says to Rolandine: “If I were so fortunate as to be chosen by you for your husband, then I would be your husband, your lover, and your servant for the rest of my days.” The simple satisfaction of being in love is motivated by the other person’s goodness, even if it means forfeiting oneself. This can be seen as foolish or crazy, because humans are not supposed to want to give themselves up for another person, but it is also in many ways the greatest wisdom one can reach. Valuing the happiness and welfare of another above your own happiness and welfare is, across many religions and cultures, the moment of enlightenment, and the greatest closeness to God that a person can achieve.

 

Love as an Equalizer

Author: Madeline Van Brunt

Love as an Equalizer

William Shakespeare play, Love’s Labor’s Lost, presents the idea that love can be an equalizing force between men and women at the time. The men in the play are highly regarded as they leave the world to study in solitude. However, they discover that love trumps the intelligence they would receive from three years of studying. If men are originally presented as superior in society, they fall weak to the sickness of love, and the women gain power because they are the object of the men’s weakness through their ordered love as opposed to the men’s disordered love.

The men’s dedication to their studies presents them as intelligent and superior to others in their society. They are told to “barren tasks, too hard to keep, not to see ladies, study, fast, not sleep” (LLL I.i.4-47). Once the women arrive, the men quickly start to fall in love with them. After the scene in which they all find out that one another are falling in love, they decide to rethink the contract. Their priority of gaining intelligence quickly banishing to the power of love. Shakespeare describes love as a sickness, in which the men fall and are unable to heal without time. The powerful men fall powerless to love. It is also ironic how the intelligent men love the women disorderly. They literally leave behind their ration, to study, to love irrationally.

The women however, have the upper hand. In the beginning of the play, they are not treated highly and are left to sleep in tents. The women are illustrated as inferior these men. However, once the men love them, the women gain control. The men hope to show their control and dress up as Russian men to impress the women. However, the women hear about it from Boyet, and decide to deceive the men by disguising themselves as one another. The plan falls for the men, and the King says “We are descried. They’ll mock us now downright” (LLL V.1850). Throughout the conversations, the women are wittier than the men. The King speaks to Rosaline, who he thinks is the princess, saying “Why take we hands then?” and she responds, “Only to part friends. Curtsy, sweet hearts. And so the measure ends” (LLL IV. 1662 – 1664). The women have a control over the men, and the women are empowered. Shakespeare wrote this play with underlying feminist values to show that amidst love, the women are the ones that love rationally. This depicts that women are not actually inferior to men, and uses love to demonstrate this idea.

In the end, the women must leave after hearing the princess’ father has died. The men express their love for the women and ask for their hands in marriage, yet the women deny. Each woman gives their man an order. Rosaline tells Berowne “A twelvemonth shall you spend, and never rest, But seek the weary beds of people sick” (LLL V. 2259). Most women have similar requests for their man to do good for a year until they will see them. Katharine says to the king “Not so, my lord. A twelvemonth and a day I‘ll mark no words that smooth-faced wooers say: Come when the king doth to my lady come; Then, if I have much love, I’ll give you some” (LLL V.2265).  Katharine says this to the King implying that she is unsure that his love is real and she will not reciprocate the love until it is certainly real love. This leads to the unanswered question, is their love real? Shakespeare ends the play without the question being answered, but the men continuing their studies (the same as the play began). This not only empower the women by leaving as independent women, but also leaves the men having to wait a year loving these women. The men’s love was quick and overbearing. So, if love is truly a sickness, then only time can heal one’s illness. Therefore, the play ends with the women in full knowledge that the men’s love is unordered and spontaneous. They fear that their love stems from the wrong reasons. In order for it to be true love, it must also contain ration. The play ends in the women being enlightened with the equation to find true love: spontaneous love plus time.

In conclusion, Shakespeare’s play contains a strong message about love. He portrays it through the men’s disordered love and the women’s ordered love. This plot allowed for the women to gain in society because they were the objects of the men’s affection, yet the men lose because they forgo their scholar status because of love. They become subjects of the powerful love and lose their ration. However, the women are more intelligent because they know the true meaning of love. The women have ordered love and understand that true love can only be obtained once ration is in combination with love. Since the men are “love sick” then time is the only healer, and the play ends with them having to wait a year. Love acts as an equalizer in the social statuses of the society and between men and women.

 

 

Shakespeare’s Dangerous Relationship with Love

Author: Zachary Gross

While William Shakespeare is credited with over 30 full length plays, and hundreds on poems not all of them are as well known to the general public. Works such as Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Othello, and many of his sonnets are among his most famous works. What do all of these works have in common? All of them have a central theme of love that is the driving force of the plot. Shakespeare wrote 154 sonnets, a majority of them being about love, with a large portion of them using the word love explicitly in the opening line. It is clear that the idea or theme of love is very important to Shakespeare’s works, and therefore Shakespeare. Shakespeare shows love from many angles however, showing both the beautiful, and the incredibly dark side of one of the world’s most powerful forces.

In Love’s Labour’s Lost, as evidenced by the title, the theme of love is incredibly pertinent to the play. Three bright young scholars and a king vow to dedicate themselves to a life of teaching and education, but they surmise that in order to do this they must avoid all distractions. The most paramount thing they vow to avoid, is man’s greatest distraction: woman. The swear off women, and therefore love, for three years, accepting harsh punishments if they break this oath. When the first man, Costard, breaks his promise, he is sentenced to “Fast a week with Bran and Water” (line 242). However, this does not seem to deter Costard or any of the other men. The rest of the men almost immediately fall in love with a visiting princess and her court, showing that even the strongest and most dedicated of men have almost no power to resist the strong temptation of love. The rest of the play details the group of men’s fruitless attempts in their quest for love. The continually try and fail to get the women to fall in love with them, but they are wiser and sidestep the men’s cheap attempts. Eventually the men get tired of catching each other in the act of pursuing the women, and decide to unite and win them over together. This results in a giving of gifts, and a play in a final attempt to persuade the princess and her friends. However this ultimately failed, and the princess tells them to return and try again in a year. It is never revealed whether or not they later succeed, but it would not be wrong to assume they never win over the women’s hearts. Ultimately, Love’s Labour’s Lost ends in one of Shakespeare’s favorite ways, tragedy.

Almost certainly Shakespeare’s most famous play is Romeo and Juliet. Containing some of the most well known lines of any play, Romeo and Juliet is indisputably an incredible commercial success. It also centers around Shakespeare’s most common theme of love. Romeo Montague, and Juliet Capulet, held apart by deep seated family tensions fall deeply in love but would never be allowed to be together. Already a tragedy in itself, it only gets more tragic as their love grows deeper and they end up running away. The play ultimately ends in a series of very unfortunate, almost comical, events which results in both Romeo and Juliet killing themselves as they do not want to carry on living without the other. This play again details how frequently love in Shakespeare’s plays end in tragedy.

Shakespeare is also said to have written some of the most critically acclaimed, and best love poems of all time. Many people believe that Sonnet 18 is the single best love poem of all time. Starting with, “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?/ Thou art more lovely and more temperate:” (Sonnet 18) this fourteen line poem is the pinnacle of Shakespeare’s views on love. In nearly all of Shakespeare’s sonnets he details the beautiful features of both many unnamed men and women. In these sonnets, Shakespeare details the much more alluring side of love rather than the more violent side of love in many of his plays. He writes to praise the objects of his affection instead of ultimately killing them off or having other dire consequences.

Although Shakespeare seems to vary on some of his ideas of love, he never wavers on the power of love and its infinite reach. Many of his sonnets discuss the idea of never ending love such as “So long as men can breathe or eyes can see/ So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.” (Sonnet 18). Shakespeare wants to demonstrate to his readers that he believes that love is an unwavering eternal force. Love can make humans and even animals go to never ending length for the subject of their affection. Whether its a poem written to the love of their life, or a character fighting for somebody they love, Shakespeare wants his readers to understand the power of love.  

Shakespeare’s darker views on love are evident in many of his works. Countless numbers of great love stories in Shakespeare’s plays are ended through suicide or murder, such as in Romeo and Juliet. Those love stories that do not end in murder usually just end relatively poorly such as the men’s fruitless quest for love in Love’s Labor’s Lost. Shakespeare is clearly trying to show the correlation between love and disastrous results. What the motive behind this may be unknown, but the theme of love is pertinent to many of Shakespeare’s works and was clearly important to him.

 

 

“Shakespeare Love Quotes: 31 Of The Greatest Ever Quotes.” The Bridal Box, 21 Oct. 2016, www.thebridalbox.com/articles/shakespeare-love-quotes_0031440/.

Image result for love shakespeare

The Power of Love

Author: John Tevere

The legendary William Shakespeare’s play, Love’s Labour’s Lost demonstrates the ability of love in overcoming any other force. The king and his three lords, Berowne, Longaville, and Dumaine, swear an oath to remain singletons for a period of three years, and focus on their studies to create a renowned academe of intellectuals. It is during this time when the princess of France visits the king and his court that they fall in love despite the oath they took. Shakespeare’s intention for writing this play can be uncovered through an analysis of this conflict, often leaving his audience with little doubt that love can conquer any obstacle.

Shakespeare foreshadows the end of the play through the princess when she kills the deer and states, “As I for praise alone now seek to spill the poor Deer’s blood, that my heart means no ill” (V, 817-818). Along with, “Only for praise, and praise we may afford, to any Lady that subdues a Lord” (V, 821-822) it can be inferred that the princess seeks praise and glory from her peers. After understanding Shakespeare’s purpose at the end of the play when the princess and her companions tell the king and his court to fulfill their oath, it can be understood that the princess tries to exert her power over the king by forcing him to complete the original mission they set out for, then looking for love. This is only plausible because the king and his court have fallen in love with the women and as a result, they are able to convince them to fulfill their oath. Love in this case is a force so strong that it was able to deter the men from their original hope of creating a renowned academe, then love convinced the men to resume this task and upon completing the third year of study they may attain the love they desire from the women.

By contrasting love with the search for knowledge, Shakespeare shows that even a pursuit as noble as higher education is susceptible to love. It is clear then that through this play Shakespeare is discussing the immense power of love. The woman are empowered through love because they are able to manipulate the men, such as when they disguised themselves when the king and his three lords were dressed as Muscovites. The princess even says, “There’s no such sport, as sport by sport o’erthrown: To make theirs ours, and ours none but our own. So shall we stay mocking intended game, and they well mock’d depart away with shame.” (IX, 1591-1594) The princess means that she wants to mock the men for trying to play a trick on the women and because of this mockery they will feel ashamed. Therefore, this embarrassment will empower the women and allow them to force the men to fulfill their oath of not seeing women for another year before they may consider taking their hand in marriage.

Depiction of the King of Navarre, with his three lords, Dumaine, Longaville, and Berowne visiting the Princess of France and her three companions, Rosaline, Maria, and Katherine.

Shakespeare used his writing as a vehicle for discussing societal issues, often presenting two sides of an argument and allowing his audience to conclude their own opinion about the issue he is presenting. That is why this play fits in as a Brechtian styled learning play, or a play that forces the audience to think about what is happening and learn from it, rather than being a standard play strictly for entertainment purposes. Furthermore, Shakespeare believes love is rather complicated and it drives people to do crazy things, such as when Armado falls in love with Jaquenetta and is ready to fight Costard during the Nine Worthies play within this play. Love is a multifaceted force, that no one may truly understand, but through the works of some of the greatest authors in history they have helped society come to form an understanding about the power of love. One could even say that a resulting effect of these authors expressing their opinion on love, is that every other conclusion one could come to about love will be uncovered as each reader or audience member to this play will have a different understanding of what love is.

 

 

The Irony of Social Classes

Author: Michael Hirsch

In his comedy, “Love’s Labor’s Lost,” William Shakespeare offers his own perspective on the potential foolishness of established names and social classes. Throughout the play, Shakespeare offers his view on the futility of being in a high social class, and that this does not always work in your favor. Additionally, Shakespeare ironically names many of his characters, such as Dull and Costard, to display negative traits about them, when in fact he wants to illustrate to us that they might be better people. Shakespeare dedicates much of his comedy to criticizing the upper-class people in favor of those who are deemed by society to be lower-class, who seem to live better lives despite their label.

 

In most societies, there is typically one male who the rest of the people can emulate, but such a person does not exist in “Love’s Labor’s Lost.” Shakespeare intentionally does not include someone of this persona to highlight the flaws of the class system of his time, and how men did not strive enough to become their role-models. At the beginning of the play, the king seems to be worried about his

Weimar03 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
fame and legacy, so he draws up a study program for him and his three lords, Dumaine, Longaville, and Berowne, which entails no women with limited food and sleep for three years. When the Princess and her three ladies first hear of this oath, they become fascinated, but realize soon after meeting the men that the oath is impractical, as the Princess tells the king, “Tis deadly sin to keep that oath my lord.” The life that the lords desire to live by keeping their oath is not an admirable life, as the ladies quickly realize, so it is not appropriate to look up to the King and his lords as admirable, noble men.

 

Another example of the lack of admirable upper-class men is apparent with Don Armado. Armado, like the king and the three men, is practicing the same oath for three years, but falls in love with Jaquenetta soon after pledging himself to the oath. Rather than trying to follow the vow and subdue his feelings for Jaquenetta, he simply looks for consolation, saying to his Page, “Comfort me boy, what great men have been in love.” After the Page responds with Hercules as an example, Armado stills looks for more examples of great men he can compare himself to, continuing, “name more; and sweet child let them be men of good repute and carriage.” Rather than following his oath and morals to become a more educated, admirable man, he looks for examples of famous men falling in love, so that he can convince himself that his improper behavior is acceptable. The lack of a true role model in this play also demonstrates the drastic effects this could have on society. These young men have no worthy male to follow by example and simply want to develop into successful, heroic men, so they embark on this three-year study without realizing the silliness of it.

 

Shakespeare also ironically constructs the play so that the lower-class citizens actually have more intellect than the upper-class citizens, even though people of higher status have far more education. In the first scene where the king finalizes the oath with his three lords, Berowne is the only one of them to even go as far as to question the oath, concluding after a lengthy rant, “O these are barren tasks, too hard to keep, not to see ladies, study, fast, not sleep.” Berowne’s use of reasoning only lasts a little longer though, as soon after complaining about the tasks required by the oath, he swears himself to study with the king and the other lords. To most lower-class citizens and audiences such as us, this plan seems quite ill-advised, but the upper-class men are too driven by the honor of adhering to their oath to propose a more useful plan. It seems very outrageous to us that none of the other lords even question the legitimacy of the oath. By beginning the play like this, Shakespeare immediately establishes the naivety and excessive pride of the upper class, since none of them seriously question what “barren tasks” they are subjecting themselves too. They merely think of the honor of following a code, as the only reason Longaville gives to Berowne is that he “swore to that… and to the rest” of the oath. Based on this first scene, members of the upper class do not seem to be truly intellectual.

 

Throughout the course of the play, the characters who are portrayed as lower-class citizens gradually realize that studying is not the most optimal way to achieve success. One instance of this is when Costard is speaking of the wittiness of the other characters present, and he concludes, “Ah heavens, it is a most pathetical nit.” Costard is developed to be a source of amusement to the rest of the characters. His frequent mistakes and misunderstandings, such as his accidental switching of the love letters, portrays Costard as similar to a clown. The fact that a lower-class clown is able to reason that aristocratic status does not make a good person is shocking, but it supports Shakespeare’s idea that the upper class is not necessarily admirable. Another example of this is with Dull, who is very representative of his name—uninteresting—as well as uneducated and simple. This impression is formed when we first meet Dull, and he fumbles over the pronunciation of Armado’s name, saying “Senor Arme-, Arma” when delivering Armado’s letter to the king. Even as an uninteresting, uneducated fool, Dull is still able to later point out the artificiality of Nathaniel and Holofernes, saying to them “You two are book-men.” Dull is able to tell that Nathaniel and Holofernes are merely book smart, with very little common sense to go along with it. The fact that lower-class individuals such as Costard and Dull are able to recognize this shows that they might in fact have more intellect and success, and thus be happier with their lives.

 

Nathaniel and Holofernes are also examples of the irony of social classes. Nathaniel and Holofernes are obviously well-educated, as they have conversations with each other in many different languages, and are even keen enough to point out the mistakes of the much less-educated Costard, saying “Oh I smell false Latin.” Although these two men are very-well educated, they seem to have trouble interacting with other members of society since they constantly use their extravagant speech, often in other languages. Nathaniel and Holofernes had many years of study, but still have little ability to converse and fit in with society, further illustrating that high social class does not necessarily imply success.

 

By constructing the social classes in “Love’s Labor’s Lost” this way, Shakespeare conveys to the audience that rather than using high social class or rich education to become successful, success is better achieved by people like who interact with others on a daily basis. Shakespeare embellished this idea through his characterization of Armado’s Page. Even though the Page is just a boy, he seems to have achieved higher intellect by conversing with people every day, as opposed to characters like Nathaniel and Holofernes, who have extensive education, but little ability to fit it. Shakespeare uses the irrationality of the upper class in his comedy to criticize the social class system of 16th century England.

About Don Armado; Why He’s More Than Just a Dumb Braggart

Author: Cameron Hunter

In 1588 an event occurred that would drastically change the dynamic between nations in western Europe. The Spanish failed attempt to invade England using the Spanish Armada was an event that directed the history of two nations. This is reflected in the literature of both the Spanish and English during the late 16th and early 17th centuries. One author who was clearly affected by the failed invasion of the Spanish was play write William Shakespeare, who is famous for conveying messages that retain meaning after hundreds of years. However, some of his plays had political messages geared towards audiences of the time. One such example of this was his late 16th century play Love’s Labor’s Lost, where to convey his message of tolerance towards the Spanish people, Shakespeare employs the character of Don Armado and his Page.

Quartley, J. Armado and Costard. 1832. Folger Digital Image Collection, Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D.C. 3 28,2018. https://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/detail/FOLGERCM1~6~6~297902~123000:Armado-and-Costard—–bear-this-si?sort=call_number%2Cmpsortorder1%2Ccd_title%2Cimprint&qvq=q:Don%2BArmado;sort:call_number%2Cmpsortorder1%2Ccd_title%2Cimprint;lc:FOLGERCM1~6~6&mi=1&trs=5

The character of Don Armado is clearly a jab at the failed invasion of England by the Spanish navy, or the “Spanish Armada,” in 1588. However, that point has been argued so thoroughly and so often that it is almost accepted as fact. What is more interesting is the idea that Shakespeare did not take a holistically negative perspective of the Spanish, as a majority of the English population did at this time. One piece of evidence for this lies in the Page. The Page of Don Armado can reasonably be assumed to be Spanish as well, as the average term of servitude was about ten years at the time and the Page is described as a boy in the play. This gives evidence to the point that Shakespeare is showing the Spanish in two different perspectives, as the Page is extremely witty and often times ends up outwitting his master in word play. An example of this word play occurs in the second section of the play as Shakespeare writes:

“P. Speak you this in my praise Master?

B. In thy condign praise.

P. I will praise an Eel with the same praise.

B. What? that an eel is ingenious.

P. That an Eel is quick.

B. I do say thou art quick in answers. Thou heatest my blood,” (269-274).

Here, Shakespeare is showing how educated this Spanish servant is, by not only having him keep up with is masters language, but showing the Page surpass Don Armado. Shakespeare chose to have the servant outwit the master to give the audience a little reminder that not all Spanish are like Don Armado. They’re not all braggadocios and self-righteous, some are like the Page, smart, witty, and unassuming. The goal of this tactic would be to jar the audience into realizing they have been sucked into a huge metanarrative. That being all Spanish are evil, and to begin to see that they may have been mistreating a Spaniard in their own life.

Another perspective that could be taken on how Shakespeare uses Don Armado to portray the Spanish in Love’s Labor’s Lost is one of religion. It has been generally accepted that Shakespeare’s family was of Catholic faith, and when the Catholic nation of Spain tried to invade England, a Protestant country, attitudes towards Catholic believers turned south extremely fast. Most catholic believers were forced into hiding over fear of persecution. It seems that in his play, Shakespeare desires to begin to alter the view of the Spanish, and therefore Catholics, through the character of Don Armado. In the beginning of the play, Armado is introduced as a stereotypical Spaniard knight who has fallen from glory and now hangs on to what little prestige he has left. Shakespeare desired this image at the beginning of the play to gain the audiences trust and allow them to start to enjoy Armado as a character. However, at the end of the play, in section ten, Armado does something that turns the audience’s judgement of Armado on its head. It is revealed that Armado has impregnated Jaquenetta and Don Armado then proclaims to the King that he “will kiss thy royal ring, and take leave, I am a votary; I have vowed to Jaquenetta to hold the plough for her sweet love three years,” (2322).  Here, Shakespeare paints Don Armado as a man who is giving up everything that he values, his status and money, to become a peasant for Jaquenetta’s sake. This is truly one of the more moving moments in the play, as Don Armado sacrifices everything he has in order to do what is right by Jaquenetta, who he truly loves after all. Shakespeare has Don Armado turn over a new leaf at the end of the play for the English audience to see that not all Spanish are wicked and corrupt, and that some are truly good people. His motivation for wanting this change was most likely a desire to allow his faith to become respected once again in England and he employed Don Armado’s change in character to do it.

Through the evolution of the character Don Armado, and the inclusion of the character Page, William Shakespeare conveys the message that the Spanish and therefore the Catholics should not be demonized based on a metanarrative or stereotype. This is a concept that we are still battling with today. If we take the general idea of the statement and apply the concept from the Spanish nationality and Catholic religion to the Middle Eastern nations and the Islamic religion, we can see remarkable parallels. They face similar metanarratives of all people from the Middle East being dangerous, or all Islam believers are terrorists in the post-modern era. Similarly, all of these stereotypes and metanarratives stem back to an attack; It was 9/11 that began the surge is islamophobia in the US, and it can be made parallel to the failed invasion of England by the Spanish that spurred the hatred of Catholics in England. By making these modern parallels we can begin to understand more completely what Shakespeare was trying to convey to us through his late 16th century play, Love’s Labor’s Lost and begin to see applications for it in our own lives.

Love’s Labourers Are Lost

Author: William Hosbein

Lost

Brad and Sarah are freshman at Villanova University, and have recently been spending a lot of their freetime together. They often eat together at the Spit, make the long walk to Tolentine together, and attend the basketball games at Wells Fargo together. A facetime session between Brad and Sarah is starting to wind down. The conversation on facetime comes to an end, and the Sarah asks cutely “Are you gonna hang up?” Brad’s mind instantly imagines the all-to-classic hang up scene, you know the one, “You hang up”, “No you hang up”, and so on. With a smile on his face and a heart full of confidence, Brad responds, “Are you gonna hang up?” Brad expected her to return the question again, but instead received an enthusiastic “Yeah!”, and before Brad could say anything, Sarah quickly hung up. Brad sat there disappointed. He was beginning to have serious feelings for Sarah, feelings of love, and the fact she ended the conversation like that, made him sad. If only Brad had read the play, Love’s Labour’s Lost by William Shakespeare, assigned by his ACS Moderns teacher, he could have seen this type of cold behavior coming.

In Shakespeare’s late sixteenth century play, Love’ Labour’s Lost, he asserts that men take love more seriously than women. Shakespeare accomplishes this by highlighting the male characters commitment and devotion to love. Additionally, Shakespeare reinforces this notion by emphasizing how women’s cynical and care free view on love.

This idea of love meaning more to men surfaces in the beginning of the play. In Act 1 Scene 1, the King addresses Longaville, Berowne, and Dumaine, making them aware that the men must abide by the “those statutes That are recorded in this schedule here”(Shakespeare, 18-19). Longaville and Dumaine readily agree to the terms the King has set, but Berowne has a several problems with the “schedule”. Berowne has no problem studying for three years “But there are other strict observances:As not to see a woman in that term” and “And one day in a week to touch no food:” and “then to sleep but three hours in the night” (Shakespeare, 38-43). This is the first example of men showing their concern for love. As stated by Berowne, he is unsure whether he wants to sign the documents because they require him to stay away from women. Some l iterary analysts of this play believe Shakespeare wrote Love’s Labour’s Lost through a feminist lens. As a result, people might believe Berowne’s apprehension about not seeing women is rooted in sexual desire. Such a viewpoint is an assumption, not an interpretation, for when Berowne expresses his concern to the King, he never mentions sex or physical contact with women through innuendo, which Shakespeare often highlights in other plays like Romeo and Juliet.

The reason for Berowne’s concern regarding not seeing women becomes apparent in Act 4, Scene 3 when he gives a passionate speech about the importance of love. During the speech he passionately discusses the benefits about pursuing women and love. He proclaims that women and love are an integral part of youth, teach beauty, and enhance one’s senses. Through Berowne’s fear about not seeing women and his ardent speech regarding the power and importance of love, it it evident that love plays an essential role in his life.

Shakespeare reinforces that the men are more devoted to love than the women by highlighting the fact women do not take love as seriously. For example, in Act 1, Scene 2, Armado tells Jaquenetta, “I love thee” (Shakespeare, 338). Jaquenetta simply responds, “So I heard you say” (Shakespeare, 339). Prior to saying he loves her, Armado told Jaquenetta he wanted to visit her at the Lodge. Like Brad had serious feelings for Sarah, Armado clearly had serious feelings for Jaquenetta. He then goes on to confess his love for her, only to receive an insincere response. Some analysts might argue that Armado confessed his love in a basic way. However, telling someone you love them is not like telling them good morning. Saying “I love you” or “I love thee” requires bravery and confidence. Therefore, the way in which someone says “I love you” is irrelevant. Jaquenetta fails to realize this. She hardly acknowledges what Armado tells, showing disrespect and how little she thinks of love. Despite her impassioned reaction, Armado remains determined. At the end of the scene in a small but heartfelt speech he proclaims how deeply in love he is, and that he will attempt to win Jaquenetta’s heart by writing to her. Overall, Armado’s intentness on winning Jaquenetta

The females’ lax attitude towards loves appears again later in the play when they decide to play a prank on the men. Each female character received a gift from their respective lover, the Princess was given a diamond, Rosaline a pearl, Katharine a glove, and Maria a necklace. Instead of appreciating the gifts, the girls decide to use them against the men for entertainment. Each girl swaps gifts so the men mistakenly approach the wrong girl. In addition to swapping gifts, the women refuse to dance with the men. Evidently, the women believe the whole situation is a joke.

Later in the scene, each men approach their respective lovers, only to find out they have been fooled. Despite being annoyed and discouraged, the men are determined to win the heart’s of their lovers. All the men express their love to the women, but the girls remain unconvinced. To be sure that their male counterparts are completely devoted, each girl makes a proposition. The Princess asks the King to spend a year at a monastery, Katherine requests Dumaine become a monk for a year, and Rosaline demands Berowne do community service. The men readily accept the demands of their female counterparts without question. It is important to put this situation into context to understand how devoted the men truly are. They wrote sonnets, bought gifts, and even agreed to adopt new careers, even though the women showed no appreciation for the effort the men put forth.

Although Love’s Labour’s Lost is often considered a feminist play, it is in fact a criticism of the way women love. Shakespeare makes this point by consistently showing the male characters’ devotion and persistence to love. No matter how many times the characters are rejected, or how cruel the girls treat them, the men continue to love. This behavior is consistent with the title of the play in that the men are clearly the labourers of love in the play. In regards to the lost part, the men are clearly lost in love. They write sonnets, buy gifts, and even agree to perform certain jobs. Some might say the men love blindly, explaining why the men are “lost”, or perhaps the men are simply lost in love.

Classism Isn’t Classy

Author: Elizabeth Antwi-nsiah

 

 

Disguised as a convoluted comedy about love and the things it can make you do, Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost is actually has major social commentary. One of the themes that Shakespeare takes on is social classes. The fact that the audience was the Queen and her court is important to note in respect to this theme. Throughout the play there is an emphasis on high and low born characters. There was more to all these characters besides their stereotype. The low born characters were more likely to be smarter and seemed to have more life experience than the characters who were high born. Shakespeare uses stereotypically less educated characters and makes them the more insightful to address classicism in his time.

 

 The relationship between Page and Braggart is a clear example that class is not an indication of intelligence. In a traditional relationship between a page and his master the master would be smarter and have better life experience. In the case of Page and Braggart this isn’t true. Whenever there is dialogue between these two characters Page is obviously whittier and appears to have more insight about love than Braggart. When Page starts discussing love and the ridiculous things it can make people do it displays how much more he knows about life than Braggart does, “No my complete Master, but to Jig off a tune at the tongue’s end, canary to it with your feet, humor it with turning up your eyelids, sigh a note and sing a note sometime through the throat, if you swallowed love with singing love sometime through: nose as if you snuffed up love by smelling love with your hat penthouse-like o’er the shop of your eyes,” (4.638). Strictly by observation Page knows more about love than Braggart does. Just because Page is lower class doesn’t mean that he has to fit into all the stereotypes that are set for those people. In contrast Braggart who would traditionally be sharing his knowledge to Page’s comes off as less witful and slower. Braggart isn’t able to keep up with Pages wit, yet is still arrogant. In the fourth section Braggart claims to be in love, then forgets the name of the person of his affection and the Page is able to tell that this isn’t true love, “BRAGGART. But Oh—, but Oh—PAGE. The Hobby-horse is forgot.BRAGGART. Callest thou my love Hobby-horse.PAGE. No Master, the Hobby-horse is but a colt, and your love perhaps, a hackney: But have you forgot your love?”(4.641-644). Braggart can’t even keep up with the jokes that Page makes about his lack of intelligence. Shakespeare uses Braggarts lack of wit in order to portray that being high born doesn’t make a noble better than a commoner.

 

 Shakespeare uses Costard, the clown, to dispel what was traditionally thought about people of lower classes. Costard is another stock character that isn’t thought of as someone who would have insights to life due to a lack of intelligence. Costard in the original sense would be thought of as the butt of the joke,  someone who is there for entertainment. Throughout the play, Costard proves that the stereotypes don’t define both noble and common people through his level of education. When the King reads the letter from Braggart and him and Costard go back and forth is a key example of this, Ay the best for the worst. But, sirrah, what say you to this? COSTARD. Sir I confess the Wench. KING. Did you hear the Proclamation? COSTARD. I do confess much of the hearing it, but little of the marking of it. KING. It was proclaimed a year’s imprisonment to be taken with a Wench. COSTARD. I was taken with none sir, I was taken with a Damsel. KING. Well, it was proclaimed Damsel. COSTARD. This was no Damsel neither sir, she was a Virgin.(1.231-237).

 

Most Jesters wouldn’t be able to outwit the a king or have any type of banter. The characteristics Shakespeare gives to Costard or usually attributed to high born people. Shakespeare is making a point to his noble audience that their social status means nothing. Costard even points out to the audience that the characters that are supposed to be better than the low born seem to be wittier, “By my soul a Swain, a most simple Clown. Lord, Lord, how the Ladies and I have put him down. By my troth most sweet jests, most iconic vulgar wit, When it comes so smoothly off, so obscenely as it were, so fit. Armado at to the side, oh a most dainty man, To see him walk before a Lady, and to bear her Fan. To see him kiss his hand, and how most sweetly a will swear: And his Page at other side, that handful of wit, Ah heavens, it is a most pathetical nit. Sowla, sowla.”(5.901-910). Costard starts by pointing out that he is a clown to remind the audience of his status. Costard then goes on to allude to the previous conversation in which he and the ladies outwitted Boyet. Costard also mentions the relationship between Braggart and Page, pointing out that the Page is simply smarter than him. In doing this Shakespeare is directly letting his audience know one of the themes. Costard’s statement functions as a way to let the audience know that they aren’t just watching for entertainment. Costard’s character relates back to the real world outside of the play especially in lines like these where he talks directly to the audience.  

 

Shakespeare uses the topic of love that everyone can relate to as a front to tell his audience what he actually thinks about being noble and being a commoner. In modern society this same world view still exists. People born with more money are thought to be more educated and better than people born with less. Shakespeare creates these characters to prove that this isn’t it always the case. Just like in the play being a richer more important person today doesn’t mean they are smart or give that person a better understanding of life.

Bruegel , Pieter Peasant Wedding Dance. 1607. Chamber of Wonders, Charles Street, Belgium. March, 2018 http://art.thewalters.org/detail/24128.

 

Shakespeare’s Take on Women in Society

Author: Elizabeth Simon

When Shakespeare’s play “Love’s Labour’s Lost” was first performed in the mid-1590’s it was common in society to view women as lesser than men. Although it was expected that most women would have less education and be of lower intelligence than the majority of men, in the play of “Love’s Labour’s Lost”, Shakespeare goes against the societal norm and gives the women intelligent personalities. He might have done this because his play was originally made to be performed in front of Queen Elizabeth I, or maybe he considered women the same way he considered lower classes and wanted to give them a way to rise above the expectations of the day. Either way, throughout the play there are numerous instances where the women portray higher intelligences and general common sense over the men.

 

The character of the Princess of France shows this contrast the most through her witty comments and well thought out conversations with the other characters. Soon after the Princess first arrives, she jests with Boyet saying, “…my beauty though but mean, / Needs not the painted flourish of your praise: / Beauty is bought by judgment of the eye, / Not uttered by base sale of chapmen’s tongues,”. In saying this, Shakespeare is addressing the common issue of women being judged on their looks and in turn gives the Princess the ability to recognize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. This type of in depth self-evaluation speaks to her intelligence and comfort in her position as to not need to worry about her looks.

 

Again related to beauty, the Princess often makes comments about how her wisdom will benefit her more than her looks. She says, “See see, my beauty will-be sav’d by merit. / O heresy in fair, fit for these days, / A giving hand, though foul, shall have fair praise,”. Here, she is saying that her intelligence will hold more influence than her looks, and that in general, someone who helps others will be praised even if they aren’t attractive. Shakespeare is addressing the fact that in society women were only known for their looks and their ability to run a household. Contradicting that societal value, the Princess was made out to be able to hold her own and match up to the men in the play.

 

Contrary to the women, Shakespeare portrayed the men in the King’s court to be foolish, lovesick, and have no general direction throughout the play other than to converse with the Princess and her court. On the other hand, the Princess and her court are level headed and can hold their own against the men. The Princess says, “The effect of my intent is to cross their: / They do it but in mockery merriment, / And mock for mock is only my intent,” to draw attention to how the men use their antics just to mess with the women, but the women act with more purpose than just “mockery merriment,”. More than just compared to the women in society at the time, the women compared to the men in the play come out more intelligent and able to handle their wits. Not only was Shakespeare saying that women can be more influential than they are in society, he was saying that they can be as influential, if not more, than the men of the time, too.

 

Throughout the entire play, the Princess and her court remain witty and highly respectable, even as the confusion of the last few scenes takes place. Through all of the disguises and pairings of men with women, in the end, the Princess still has level headed advice about what to do with the men. She says “Your oath I will not trust but go with speed / To some forlorn and naked hermitage, / Remote from all the pleasures of the world; / There stay, until the twelve celestial signs,” and then “…at the expiration of the year, / Come challenge me, challenge me by these deserts, / And, by this virgin palm now kissing thine, / I will be thine…”. Even when she’s in love, instead of acting crazy like the men, the Princess stays smart and thinks through her feelings to make the best decision.

 

Shakespeare constantly portrays the women as level headed and intelligent compared to the men in the play. This type of modern thinking is not uncommon for Shakespeare, and his play “Love’s Labour’s Lost” is no exception. The women, especially the character of the Princess of France, prove to be able to hold their own against the King and his court as well as among themselves. They partake in witty banter with others, successfully trick the men, and remain level headed in love without becoming foolish and lovesick. Tackling the societal norms for women during the 1590s, Shakespeare gives the women in his play positions of power and the ability to speak their minds, offering a glimpse of what could be if society were to change its views.

 

Painting of French Monarch Maria de’Medici who reigned in the early 1600’s. Tito, Santi di. Portrait of Maria de’Medici. Circa 1601. Galleria Palatina, Museums of Florence. Accessed March 27, 2018. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maria_de%27_Medici,_Queen_of_France_in_circa_1600_by_an_unkown_artist.jpg