Love's Labour's Lost - Not Really Loved By Critics Between 1900 - 1940
Deana D. Young '02

"For a long time Love's Labour's Lost was one of the most neglected and disparaged of Shakespeare's comedies, earning the special distinction from Hazlitt of being the one play by Shakespeare we could do without." (Powell 18)

Love's Labour's Lost (L.L.L.) was believed by critics and audiences alike to be a bit of "fluff" from Shakespeare's collected works. Nearly all the critics treated the play as such during this time period of critical studies. There is very little reference to Love's Labour's Lost in critics' essays during that time. Usually, there was reference to another of Shakespeare's plays or characters, but very little reference just to the play on its own merits. Most critics saw the play as a group of immature young men who needed to grow up. I found that while many writers wrote their critical essays or studies on the most popular plays, only a handful even mention L.L.L. at all. And most do not offer their criticism in a positive way.

One critic does stand out to offer several different opinions of this play; Frances A. Yates. She wrote an entire book about L.L.L. called A Study of Love's Labour's Lost. The entire book is her premise of the different subjects of satire Shakespeare had in mind when he wrote this play. We will investigate this subject further in the latter part of this paper.

L.L.L. was not a popular comedy, actually until this century. "But in this century the play was rediscovered and it became clear that in the theatre it worked extremely well. Much of the credit for this must go to Harley Granville-Barker, whose Prefaces to Shakespeare are still worth consulting. But for all his sense of L.L.L.'s theatrical potential, his critical comments on the play are such as to make him a most uncertain guide. For him the play works well by the virtue of one quality, it's style." (Powell 18).

The previous two quotes are from a book written by a contemporary Shakespeare critic, Raymond Powell from his book Shakespeare and the Critic's Debate (1980). These insights are included because Powell focuses on the fact that this play wasn't liked and critics didn't flock to it to bear their souls about their interpretations of this play. Since this play was so unpopular, it never got adequate coverage or enough attention to critique it or debate it; at least not in a serious way. Remember, that the critic Granville-Barker claimed that this play's only merit was it's STYLE. It presented well as a play, and was good to show off the actors, the music, and it's style; but the play was believed to be so flimsy that it had to rely on style in place of substance.

First we will examine exactly what some of the critics were saying about L.L.L., and then we will examine what Yates says about L.L.L.

Our first critic is J. M. Robertson; his basis premise is that Shakespeare didn't write much of the work in the "Folio". He has compared work from Shakespeare contemporaries and thinks that some of his work is from other writers of that time. The editor of the book A History of Shakespearean Criticism (Vol II), Augustus Ralli points out in summarizing Robertson's critisms (1905) that Robertson believes Shakespeare had help in writing his plays, "He would not regard as heirs of his invention plays in which he modified other men's drafts or shared with others the task of revision or composition; and it is generally agreed that of such a nature was the Henry VI group. Surely then we may believe that he had collaborators or draftsman for Verona, L.L.L., Errors, Richard II, even as he refashioned other men's work in R. and J. (Romeo and Juliet) and rewrote previous plays in John, & c. Collaboration was unavoidable because plays were commissioned by a given date -- so dramatists pooled their ideas." (229) Robertson also tries to prove that Shakespeare didn't write much of his works by way of pointing out how lines of text were written; "Did the young Shakespeare write line-ended monotonous iambics? Yes, if he wrote Verona. No, if we judge from M.N.D., the first scene of Errors, and L.L.L." (230) "We know a poet as much from his rhythm as his diction. Most speeches in L.L.L. begin with iambs; in M.N.D. iambs and trochees predominate over spondees."(231) Ralli sums up that Robertson believes that Shakespeare probably didn't write Titus. " That Titus was effective on the stage makes it more likely to be the work of practiced dramatists. Shakespeare's early plays --M.N.D. and L.L.L. -- were not effective on the stage, and only after years of practical training and handling of other men's plays which he revised did he add stage- craft to his mastery of the higher elements of dramatic and poetic art." (231)

So Robertson via Ralli tells us that Shakespeare didn't write the good parts of his work by himself, but he wrote the "not so good" plays and that's why they weren't so good. This is the problem with trying to find GOOD criticism about L.L.L.; it is always shown in a negative light. It is really not considered up to par with some of his other works, and since it is one of Shakespeare's earlier works, critics and audiences weren't as driven to see this play. Robertson sends a double criticism here in that, okay Shakespeare, didn't write the plays in his "Folio" himself, he had help or helped himself to rewriting other writers works; and because L.L.L. wasn't so good, Robertson DOES attribute that piece of work to Shakespeare. In either case, L.L.L. can't win as being seen as a good play.

Our second critic is Morton Luce; unfortunately, Ralli's book doesn't consider Luce to be one of the more elite critics of Shakespeare's works. Ralli feels that Luce admires Shakespeare too much and "he has not the power to doubt and re-question his impressions which at times serves the true critic well." (238) Ralli says about Luce "He says that Shakespeare's work is the greatest mental achievement of all the ages, and he was never a beginner. In his first work he may be inexpert in the externals of poetry, but he is comparatively mature as a prose artist in words, as an observer and thinker. His knowledge is as wide, if less deep, in L.L.L., as the Tempest. There are passages in the earliest plays that show some kind of maturity, while in the latest are crudities, foibles, conceits, carelessness, errors in taste. The supreme power and charm of his work is the creative presence of the artist himself." (238) This was wonderful praise for the bard and for even his earliest works. Credit for the genius in Shakespeare, but also some homage is paid to his earlier works such as L.L.L. Ralli goes on to say that Luce says "Shakespeare's philosophy without his verse would be a body without a soul. What he saw he embodied in forms more beautiful and abiding than any other poet. It is impossible that he should tell all the great truths and not feel them. Love to him is the most important thing, and the theme of sexual love most present to him -- from L.L.L. through every phase till we reach the ideal in Miranda." (242) Here Luce's description of Shakespeare's work is truly shining, and claims that Shakespeare's most important theme or ideal is love. Here we have some nice references to L.L.L., but they are so small and infrequent, and of course Ralli has tried to put us off Luce, by implying that he is NOT one of the best critics to be entertained for serious Shakespearian evaluation. That's too bad, because I like Luce and his praise of Shakespeare.

The next to last critic I will introduce is Harley Granville-Barker. Ralli says of Granville-Barker "Mr. Harley Granville-Barker reminds us that Shakespeare was not only a dramatist, but an Elizabethan dramatist -- a topical wit. Finally, perhaps, he tried to do more with the theatre than its nature allowed -- and failed. What gave the theatre its sudden direct hold on the people was the newly arisen art of emotional acting, lacking to the older plays. Burbage and Alleyn (famous actors of Shakespeare's time - my note)gave their audience music and poetry and popular oratory in one. Shakespeare, like all artists had both a complaisant and demonic side. He gave his audience what it wanted, but was also bent on having his own way. The idea to him was more than the thing, the character was more than the plot. Even L.L.L. survives dramatically through its ideas." Granville-Barker praises Shakespeare, and claims that he was an Elizabethan dramatist and used satire to entertain his audiences. Granville-Barker even gives just a little boost to L.L.L. by saying that it's ideas carry it through, but remember earlier we pointed out that he says "style" is what works for this play. Again, this wasn't very much to go on, but is more pleasant than some of the other comments by other critics.

The last critic we will examine is Frances A. Yates and her book A Study of Love's Labour's Lost. Yates is convinced that Shakespeare's play L.L.L. is a satiric commentary on several situations that were going on at the time that the play was written. Yates starts introducing us to what she is about to explain in her book starting right in her introduction. "Everyone is agreed that L.L.L. is one of the most topical of all of Shakespeare's plays, that it bristles throughout with allusions to contemporary events and to living persons, and innumerable are the efforts which have been made to explain its meaning in terms of the dramatist's environment." (2) One of the first satires that Yates explains is about John Florio. Florio was a contemporary writer and one possible satire is that Shakespeare is having a good laugh at Florio's expense. Florio wrote several books to help teach Italian to Englishmen. In Florio's first manual called First Fruits (1578), Yates points out that "Attention has been drawn to the following phrase in the First Fruits: 'We neede not speak so much of loue, al books are ful of lou, with so many authours, that it were labour lost to speake of Loue.' It is suggested that this is where Shakespeare found his title of L.L.L." (35) Yates also believes that the character Holofernes was a rendition of Florio and she points out an anagram;

"IHOLOFERNES = IOHNESFLOREO" (36) could spell Florio's name.

Seems that Shakespeare and Florio had some rivalry and that both men enjoyed the generosity of the same patron, the Earl of Southampton. Yates also states that "some of Armado's fantasies recall Florio's translations from Guevera in the First Fruits. Various linguistic or grammatical points touched upon in the play could also be construed as allusions to Florio's teaching manuals." Yates does admit that she could go on about these little coincidences without really proving that it was Florio that Shakespeare had in mind. But Yates mentions two other possible satirizations of Florio, and she says, "I suggest, therefore, that the case for the presence of satire on Florio in L.L.L. has been very greatly strengthened. The state of affairs in the Southampton entourage, as now revealed, is no bar to it and the evidence of Eliot, and to a lesser extent o f Vaughan, undoubtedly tends to give an entirely new force and probability to the theories of those who have sought to establish Florio as the "original" Holofernes." (48) Yates does back paddle here by saying that, "there is no exact 'portrait' of Florio in the play and the original-hunters go too far in attempting to establish one." (48)

The mention of Eliot has to do with the fact that he was an author of books that were supposed to teach French to Englishmen, but on closer inspection one of his books was an attack on authors and teachers of foreign language books. In Yates second round of satirizations she looks at Eliot and his book which satirized Florio and thinks that Shakespeare read several of his books to gain information on the descriptions of different countries such as France and Spain. Yates just points out that Eliot's influence on Shakespeare made appearances in his work.

The next argument that Yates makes is for George Chapman. She writes, "One of the best established facts about the satire in L.L.L. is that it had something to do with Raleigh and his friends and with the expression of their point of view which George Chapman put forward in his poem The Shadow of the Night (1594)." Yates believes that Chapman wrote the poem in retort to a speech that Eliot had written. This brings Sir Walter Raleigh and his friends into the picture.

The next tie into this elaborate satire is "Bruno and the 'School of Night'"(89). Yates writes "The great Italian thinker Giordano Bruno was in England from 1583 to 1586 living in the house of the French Ambassador in London, where Florio was also employed. During this time Bruno published several books, in Italian and in dialogue form, in which he expounded his philosophy. As is well known, he was an early believer in the Copernican theory and his life-work was an attempt to construct a philosophy which should cover the new and startling view of the universe and of man's place in it which Copernicus's great discovery had revealed." Yates goes on to explain that Bruno' s ideas were NOT well received. It seems Bruno lost his temper and said rude things about the English Scholars, and Oxford University. Bruno wrote a book saying these rude things (he mentions Florio by name as a friend) and then writes a second book apologizing for all the rude things he said in the first book, again, Florio appears in the second book. Things quiet down and then Florio writes a book which mentions Bruno by the name "Nolano" (by which Bruno is known), and he writes things that remind people of the first book that Bruno wrote where he insulted Englishmen and it angered many people. Eliot being one of them, and he writes an attack on Florio. So Bruno's theories are out in public view again.

Yates points out that "Raleigh, Chapman, and the members of the 'School of Night' were deeply interested in the new astronomy, and a large part of the satire of L.L.L. is aimed at their absorption in studies of this nature.

These earthly godfathers of heaven's lights,
That give a name to every fixed star,
Have no more profit of their shining nights,
Than those that walk and wot not what they are.

There is little doubt that by the constant talk about stars and other heavenly bodies in the play and by the overthrow of the plans made by the young men for a close course of study, particularly astronomical and mathematical study, Shakespeare intended to ridicule." Bruno and the Raleigh group were also interested in Pythagorean studies. Numbers and references to such words as "numbered, measure, odd and even" abound in L.L.L.

Yates introduces the idea that Bruno is satirized as Berowne. "Bruno is one of the people whose presence has been suspected in L.L.L. though that theory has very few, if any, supporters to-day in England. Apologists have pointed out that "Berowne" is made at one point to rhyme with "moon", indicating that the name was pronounced 'Beroon'. The vowel and consonant sounds of 'Beroon' and 'Bruno' have much in common. The word 'bruno' means 'dark' in Italian; 'dark' is a word constantly bandied about in the play." But then she goes on to say that Bruno was believed to be more of a basis for Hamlet.

Several more satires are presented, one about Bruno and a woman named "Stella" and another about the Earl of Northumberland and his marriage to "Stella's" sister. Yates finishes up by trying to date the play based on her references to these various historical references.

Yates makes the idea of looking at all the satire in the play somewhat fun. It appears that if you know the supposed background of the play and all the innuendos, then the play would be much more interesting to the observers. Maybe this is why the play wasn't so popular, there is so much more going on here then meets the eye. As with Shakespeare's historical plays, one could follow the play and knew the history or knew who Shakespeare's meant to convey with some of his characters. But perhaps what happens in L.L.L. is that too many things have double meanings and this is lost in obscurity with the audience. For entertainment's sake I liked Kenneth Branagh's movie, it was entertaining and I didn't know all the intricacies of the background of the play; but I still enjoyed it! I agree with Harley Granville- Barker, the play has STYLE.

Even though there is so little on critical studies of L.L.L. during the 1900 - 1940 time frame. The critics presented here gives some idea of how the play has been treated in the past, and how that was changing during that time. Yates brings us into Shakespeare's world at the time the play was written; so that we can come to understand who was satirized and helps us to understand some of the obscure things that are said and done in this play.

Works Cited
Stroll, E. E. From "Art and Artifice in Shakespeare (2 comedy)" Shakespeare Criticism 1919-1935. Ed. Anne Bradby. London:Oxford University Press, 1937.

Powell, Raymond. "Love's Labour's Lost" Shakespeare and the Critics' Debate. By Powell. New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield:1980 p 17 -39.

Ralli, Agustus. A History of Shakespeare Criticism Vol II. New York: The Humanies Press. 1959

Yates, Frances A. A Study of Love's Labour's Lost . Pennsylvania: Folcroft Press Inc.: 1936

[ Home ] [ Literary Influences ] [ Cultural/Historical Influences ] [ Textual/Performance History ]
[ Critical History ] [ Web Resources ] [ Site Information ]