Love's Labor's Lost

by William Shakespeare, Barbara A. Mowat (Editor), Paul Werstine (Editor)

Folger Shakespeare Library

The world's leading center for Shakespeare studies

• Freshly edited text based on the best early printed version of the play

• Full explanatory notes conveniently placed on pages facing the text of the play

• Scene-by-scene plot summaries

• A key to famous lines and phrases

• An introduction to reading Shakespeare's language

• An essay by leading Shakespeare scholar, William C. Carroll, providing a modern perspective on the play

• Illustrations from the Folger Shakespeare Library's vast holdings of rare books

The Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C., is home to the world's largest collection of Shakespeare's printed works, and a magnet for Shakespeare scholars from around the globe. In addition to exhibitions open to the public throughout the year, the Folger offers a full calendar of performances and programs.

Genres: Plays, Shakespeare, Classics, Drama, Fiction, Theatre, Romance

291 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1598

About the author

William Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

It could be argued that one of the themes of Shakespeare's plays is the glories and failures of language itself. If so, it is truer of Love's Labor's Lost than of any other play in the canon. The courtiers, both in their sparring and wooing (and it is often difficult to tell which is which) engage in so much wordplay that they confuse each other and themselves. The comic characters also engage in continual wordplay, each specific to his stock type: fustian braggadocio, pedantic latinate quibbling, malapropism, etc.

Excess of language piles upon excess of language, obscuring the genuine romantic interest these young people have in each other, until plain-spoken death--in this case, a courtier in a black suit--enters and interrupts their idle chatter, bringing the play to an abrupt conclusion. And, as Hamlet would say, "The rest is silence."

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

What I learned from this play:

1. It is probably not the best laid plan to entrust the delivery of an urgent piece of mail to the town goof.
2. If a woman who you are not on romantic terms with suddenly shows up at your residence for a lengthy visit(???), do not make her camp out in the backyard. Let her have the nicest bed...and change the sheets perhaps. Shakespeare didn't mention that part - i'm just extrapolating...
3. While it is great fun to hang out with a group of guys and obsessively watch/quote Seinfeld, Lebowski, etc, in reality such an activity does not fall under the mantle of academic scholarship and most women will probably make fun of guys for overdoing it.

The possible penalties for ignoring these guidelines may include one year of indentured servitude as a candy striper.

I really wish that I would have read this when I was in my early twenties...

Two additional thoughts:
1. This play made me want to hug the person who invented footnotes.
2. I can't wait for the next time someone pulls out in front of me while driving so that I can call that person a whoreson loggerhead.

[Peiman E iran · Rating 4 out of 5]

‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، این نمایشنامه یکی از آثار هنرمندانهٔ زنده یاد «شکسپیر» میباشد که با موضوعی جالب و شادی بخش، درس هایِ زیادی در دلِ خود جای داده است
---------------------------------------------
‎عزیزانم، داستان در موردِ «شاه فردیناند» و ندیمانِ او «برون» ، «لانگاویل» و «دومن» میباشد که تصمیمی عجیب میگرند و با یکدیگر پیمان میبندند که به مدتِ سه سال نباید با هیچ زنی تماس داشته باشند- هفته ای یکروز نباید دست به غذا بزنند و در روزهایِ دیگر نیز روزی یک وعده باید غذا بخورند- شبی سه ساعت بیشتر نباید بخوابند- وقتِ خود را باید صرفِ مطالعه و کتاب خوانی نمایند
‎همه چیز به مدتِ دو روز به خوبی پیش میرود تا آنکه شاهزاده خانمی فرانسوی و زیبارو به آنجا رفته و میهمانِ «شاه فردیناند» میشود... ولی از آنجایی که شاه سوگند یاد کرده که سه سال هیچ زنی را وارد کاخِ خود نکند، شاهزاده خانم را به صحرا میبرد... شاهزاده خانم ندیمه هایی زیبا به نام هایِ «رزالین» و «کاترین» و «ماریا» را همراهِ خود به آنجا برده است
‎خلاصه عزیزانم، مردهایی که هر کدام نقشِ اصلی داستان هستند و با یکدیگر آن پیمانِ عجیب و غریب را بسته اند، یک دل نه صد دل، عاشقِ دخترانِ داستان میشوند.... حال بر سرِ دو راهی مانده اند که به سویِ عشق بروند یا بر عهد و پیمانی که با یکدیگر بسته اند، پایبند بمانند
‎بهتراست خودتان این نمایشنامهٔ زیبا را بخوانید تا ببینید شاهزاده و ندیمه هایش چه بلایی بر سرِ شاه و سه ندیمش می آورند و چه شرط و شروطی برای آنها در نظر میگیرند
**************************
‎دوستانِ عزیزم، «شکسپیر» با این نمایشنامه، میخواهد این را بگوید که: انسان نباید بر خلافِ آنچه طبیعتِ وجودش میباشد و آنچه طبیعت مقرر داشته، رفتار کند.. زیرا انحراف از آن، مشکلاتی را به وجود می آورد که انسان را از سعادت و خوشبختی دور میسازد.. بنابراین «شکسپیر» تأکید دارد که: تربیتِ واقعی این نیست که انسان وارد دنیایِ فرهنگِ رویایی شود، بلکه باید خودش را تابعِ قوانینِ غم و شادی، گرداند... انسان نیاز به عشق دارد، چرا باید خودش را از آن محروم کند؟ انسان نیاز به خواب و خوراک دارد. چرا باید با روزه و ریاضت کشیدن، به جسم و روان و روحیهٔ خویش آسیب وارد کند؟؟ بهترین کار این است که از زندگی لذت برد، بی آنکه به دیگران و طبیعت آسیب رساند... زن و مرد، هر دو به وجودِ یکدیگر نیازمند هستند، پس نباید بر خلافِ سرشتی که طبیعت در وجودِ آنها قرار داده است، رفتار کنند
---------------------------------------------
‎جملاتی از این کتاب را به انتخاب در زیر برایتان مینویسم
*********************************
‎شیون و زاری برای از دست دادنِ دوستان، آنقدر سودمند و گوارا نیست که شادمانی برای یافتنِ دوستانِ تازه، سودمند است
*********************************
‎جای کامیابی و شوخی در گوشِ کسی است که آنرا میشنود، نه در زبانِ کسی که آنرا به وجود می آورد
*********************************
‎آن تفریحی از همه بیشتر خوشآیند است که راهِ جلبِ توجه را کمتر از همه میداند. وقتی هدف از اشتیاق، جلبِ رضایت باشد، مفهومِ مطلبی که اشتیاق، قصدِ عرضه کردنِ آن را دارد، از بین میرود. ولی وقتی وضعِ آن آشفته شود، وضعی خنده آور به وجود می آید
*********************************
‎زیبایی با قضاوتِ نگاه خریداری میشود، نه با تبلیغ پستی که زبانِ فروشنده بکار میبرد
*********************************
‎عشق، مملو از حالاتِ ناشایستی است که چون کودکانِ سرکش و خودنما در جست و خیز است و چون این حالت در اثرِ تأثیرِ چشم بوده است، مانندِ چشم، مملو از اَشکالِ عجیب و عادات و حالاتی است که بر طبقِ حرکاتِ چشم، موضوعِ آن نسبت به اشیائی که چشم به آن نظر می افکند، تغییر میکند
---------------------------------------------
‎امیدوارم از خواندنِ این نمایشنامهٔ زیبا، لذت ببرید
‎«پیروز باشید و ایرانی»

[Darwin8u · Rating 4 out of 5]

"honorificabilitudinitatibus!"
- William Shakespeare, Love's Labor's Lost



The plot was a bit underwhelming but the dialogue was razor sharp. Sometimes, Shakespeare's early plays just seem like discoing dervishes in a mirror-adorned room. As a reader we are amazed, dazzled, and distracted by all that is going on, by the spinning virtuosity of Shakespeare's words, by his absolute mastery of the English language, by his dash, his deft slight-of-tongues. There just doesn't seem to be ENOUGH central narrative gravity to IT to pull the reader completely through IT. LLL just seems heavy on the baroque icing and less focused on any narrative complexity.

Shakespeare data dumps his genius for wit, flirtatious innuendo, and language with some fantastic lines, but wasn't flirting with a fully-developed form yet. I feel like I'm looking at early, beautiful Picasso sketches, Da Vinci cartoons, a beautiful homunculus of the future Shakespeare formed . But I want more. It really isn't you Shakespeare it is me.

Still, the play is fun, a frolic, a half-jest and nudge. It is also Shakespeare playing with the comedic form. He is rejecting and twisting the form to suit his wishes. Not yet the master of the English World, he is playing the master he will soon be.

I can't disagree too much with Harold Bloom: "Love's Labour's Lost is a festival of language, an exuberant fireworks display in which Shakespeare seems to seek the limits of his verbal resources and discovers that there are none."

Some of my favorite quotes:

― “Never durst a poet touch a pen to write
Until his ink was tempered with love's sighs.
...
From women's eyes this doctrine I derive:
They are the ground, the books, the academes,
From whence doth spring the true Promethean fire” (Act IV.3).

― “They have been at a great feast of languages, and stolen the scraps” (Act V.1)

― “O, they have lived long on the alms-basket of words. I marvel thy master hath not eaten thee for a word; for thou art not so long by the head as honorificabilitudinitatibus: thou art easier swallowed than a flap-dragon” (Act V.1).

[Ali Ahmadi · Rating 3 out of 5]

جنون کلمات یا وقتی شکسپیر رِند می‌شود

نیمی از قضیه با نگاه به نام اصلی نمایش روشن می‌شود: واج‌آرایی ل در یک عبارت سه‌کلمه‌ای که در سی سال ابتدایی پس از نگارش اثر به سه شکل زیر نوشته شده:
Loves labours lost
Loves labour's lost
Love's labour's lost
انگار که عمدی درکار بوده و شکسپیر از همان ابتدا سر شوخی را باز کرده. مثل همیشه جزئیات داستان در درجه‌ی دوم اهمیت‌اند، اما ماجرا از این قرار است که پادشاه ناوار/نابارا (منطقه‌ای در شمال اسپانیای‌ امروزی و مرز فرانسه) تصمیم می‌گیرد با سه اشراف‌زاده‌ی دیگر ریاضت پیشه کنند و روزه بگیرند و از زنان دوری کنند، تا درهای حکمت الاهی به‌رویشان باز شود و آوازه‌شان در دنیا بپیچد. و همزمان قرار است که شاهدخت فرانسه با تنی چند از همراهان زن و مردش بیایند و با پادشاه بر سر الحاق بخشی از قلمروی ناوار به خاک فرانسه مذاکره کنند.

اما شکسپیر که بیشتر به ایتالیا و یونان علاقه داشت، چرا این بار اسپانیا؟ زمانی که او مشغول نوشتن این اثر بوده، تنها چند سال از حمله‌ی دریایی آرمادای اسپانیا به بریتانیا می‌گذشته. مخاطب آن زمان هم این شکست فیلیپ دوم از ملکه الیزابت را به عنوان خاطره‌ای خوش و غرورآمیز در ذهنش داشته و این به شکسپیر اجازه داده که با خیال راحت از تأثیرگذاری متن بر بیننده، با دشمن شکست‌خورده‌اش شوخی کند. اینجا هم لشکرکشی در کار است، اما نه برای تصرف زمین، که برای به‌دست آوردن قلب زنان فرانسوی! ستون اصلی کمدی همین صف‌آرایی مردان و زنان مقابل هم است و شوخی‌‌ها و بازی‌های کلامی‌ای که مثل گلوله‌های توپ به سمت هم شلیک می‌شوند. مشکل اینجاست که شخصیت‌ها می‌دانند چطور باید جان سالم به‌در ببرند، اما خواننده‌ی امروزی نه.

رنج بیهوده‌ی عشق احتمالن سخت‌خوان‌ترین نمایش‌نامه‌ی شکسپیر است. جایی که او به شکلی جنون‌آمیز مرزهای زبان را پشت سر می‌گذارد و تصویری ترسناک از معنا و بی‌معنایی رسم می‌کند، تا جایی که حتا خواننده‌ی انگلیسی‌زبان هم در این هزارتوی ابهام‌ها و ایهام‌ها گم می‌شود. شکسپیر و شخصیت‌هایش نشان می‌دهند که جنگ با کلمات چیزی از جنگ با گلوله و باروت کم ندارد و چه بسا دستاوردهای بزرگ‌تری هم داشته باشد.
[عجیب نیست که طولانی‌ترین صحنه در کارنامه‌ی شکسپیر —صحنه‌ی اول پرده‌ی پنجم با هزار سطر— و طولانی‌ترین کلمه در زبان انگلیسی را در این نمایشنامه داریم:
Honorificabilitudinitatibus
یعنی توانا بودن بر کسب افتخارات]

اما تجربه‌گرایی هیچ وقت بی‌هزینه نیست و برای این بازیگوشانه‌ترین کار دوره‌ی ابتدایی شکسپیر، هزینه‌اش این بوده که بسیار کمتر از آثار دیگر او خوانده و اجرا شود. [البته ارجاعات تاریخی و تاریخ‌مصرف‌دار او به حوادث روز هم در این قضیه بی‌تاثیر نبوده‌اند.]

البته نوآوری‌های شکسپیر به زبان اثر ختم نمی‌شود. مثلن اتیوپ (که رابطه‌ی واضحی با اتیوپی و آفریقا دارد) کلمه‌ای تحقیرآمیز در زبان شکسپیر است که در آثار مختلفش برای خوار کردن زنان غیر سفید به‌کار می‌رود. اما اینجا برعکس، یکی از شخصیت‌ها سعی می‌کند معشوقش را علی‌رغم اتیوپ بودن و از قضا به خاطر همین چهره‌ی تیره ستایش کند و این کار را هم ماهرانه انجام می‌دهد! [البته قرار نیست این را به حرکتی پیشروانه و ضدتبعیض تعبیر کنیم. اول اینکه معشوق زنی از دربار فرانسه‌ست و یک فرد عادی. دوم این که این زن قطعن سیاه‌پوست نیست و تنها کمی کمتر از بقیه سفید است و بلاخره مهم‌تر از همه اینکه نویسنده در اینجا قصد جدل اخلاقی ندارد و تنها به‌دنبال این است که هنرنمایی کند و از توصیفات رایج زمانه‌اش فراتر برود و نشان بدهد چشم عاشق حتا چیزهای ظاهرن زشت را زیبا می‌بیند.]

اما جالب‌ترین نکته‌ی نمایش‌نامه برای من رِندبازیِ شکسپیر است. طعنه‌‌ی اولش به زهد ریاکارانه‌ی پادشاه و همراهانش است که از همان اول معلوم است نمی‌توانند بر سر عهدشان باشند. اما مهم‌تر از هجو زبان‌بازی و پیچیده‌گویی‌ست. شخصیت‌های ناتانیلِ کشیش و هولوفرنسِ معلم و آرمادوی شوالیه نمونه‌های اغراق‌آمیز این زبان کج و معوج‌اند که برای گفتن یک جمله‌‌ی ساده هزار کلمه مصرف می‌کنند.
نامفهوم بودن حرف‌های شخصیت نشانه‌ی برتری در جایگاه و استعداد نیست. بلکه این‌ها شیادهای ملانقطی‌‌اند که می‌توانند هر چیز بی‌معنایی را با پیچاندن در زرورق تحویل مخاطب بدهند. اینجاست که شکسپیر بعد از زدن سوزن‌های متعدد به بقیه، یک جوالدوز محکم هم به خودش می‌زند: این که داستان ده صفحه‌ای را بکنیم یک نمایش‌نامه صد و ده صفحه‌ای، هنر است یا کلاهبرداری؟

[Paul Haspel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Love is a highly complicated thing in William Shakespeare’s play Love’s Labour’s Lost. Long dismissed as a relatively lightweight comedy, Love's Labour's Lost takes many of the conventions of the romantic comedy -- a genre that was as firmly established in the theatres of Shakespeare's time as it is in the cinema of the present day -- and overturns those conventions quite ruthlessly. You'll get a laugh, most assuredly, while viewing or reading this particular Shakespeare comedy -- but in the process, you may very well find yourself reflecting on the idea that love involves both labour and loss.

Shakespeare’s brilliant use of poetic language throughout Love’s Labour’s Lost somehow reminds the reader or playgoer of the contrived, artificial qualities of the play's plot. The setting for Love's Labour's Lost is the medieval kingdom of Navarre. Located in a border area between Spain and France, Navarre spent many centuries going back and forth between French and Spanish control; accordingly, it is a border region, a liminal state, within which a drama about identity can unfold.

As the play opens, the King of Navarre and three of his nobles – Berowne, Dumaine, and Longaville – are contracting, at the King’s bidding, to commit themselves to a three years’ period of study and fasting, with a specific provision that they will avoid the company of women. In the process, the King comes across as rather vain and self-important, assuring his nobles that as they take on "the huge army of the world's desires" through their program of self-denial, they will achieve a form of immortality that, the King says, will "make us heirs of all eternity." Dumaine and Longaville buy into this quixotic enterprise quite readily, with Longaville declaring that "Fat paunches have lean pates." He assumes, in other words, that their regimen of self-denial will make them all smarter, with thinner stomachs complemented by more capacious intellects.

Berowne, however, has his doubts. He feels that all this book-study will achieve nothing but dependence on the ideas of others: "Small have continual plodders ever won,/Save base authority from others' books." And he questions the King's facile assumption that denial of the world's pleasures will automatically bring them the joys of greater wisdom, suggesting that “all delights are vain, but that most vain/Which, with pain purchased, doth inherit pain.” Yet the King dismisses Berowne's reservations, insisting that "Berowne is like an envious sneaping frost/That bites the firstborn infants of the spring"; and Berowne ultimately keeps the spoken vow he had earlier made, by signing, as the King and the other lords have, their vows of poverty and chastity.

Berowne may sign the pledge, but he's a long way from buying in to the King's ideas. He states -- in a passage that sets forth important themes of the play -- that "At Christmas I no more desire a rose/Than wish a snow in May's new-fangled shows,/But like of each thing that in season grows." In other words, it is natural to enjoy the good things of life, and unnatural to set oneself to avoiding what is good and beautiful in life. Small wonder that when he signs the pledge, Berowne assures his friends that "I am the last that will last keep his oath" -- an ambiguous double-negative promise if ever there was one.

And the ink is hardly dry on the articles when the King and his lords learn that the Princess of France is arriving in Navarre, along with three of her noble ladies – Katharine, Maria, and Rosaline. And guess what? It turns out that the King loves the Princess, while each of the lords is in love with one of the ladies. O happy coincidence! Why dost thou rear thy head ere Act I is half done?

The reason for the ladies' visit, it turns out, is an eminently sensible one, as the Princess is there on a diplomatic mission -- to seek the return to France of the border region of Aquitaine, held by Navarre. And the longer the King tries to maintain some semblance of his pledge -- by, for instance, insisting that the ladies lodge in tents outside the palace walls -- the more illogical and small-minded his thinking seems.

It is often the case, in Shakespearean comedy, that "high comedy" involving witty wordplay amongst noble characters is paired with "low comedy" that is based in physical humour and dirty talk amongst characters of lower social station. In Love's Labour's Lost, much of that low comedy comes to us courtesy of one Don Adriano de Armado, a visiting Spaniard who is referred to in the Dramatis Personae list of characters as "Armado the Braggart." Armado, with his name that recalls the Spanish Armada, is a suitable foil whose follies and self-importance would have much amused a patriotic English audience; Berowne calls Armado "a man of fire-new words," because this Spaniard's attempts to speak the elegant French of the Navarrese court regularly make him look and sound absurd. He can't even tell someone the time of day without having to dress it all up in absurd grandiloquence, as when he tells another character that they are currently in "the posteriors of this day, which the rude multitude call the afternoon."

Armado also stands out as a hypocrite; he has seen to the arrest of one Costard ("the Clown or Swain," according to the list of characters), because Costard was caught with a woman named Jaquenetta (called "the Wench" in the list); with characteristic verbosity, Armado declares that Costard was arrested in the company of "a child of our grandmother Eve, a female; or, for thy more sweet understanding, a woman". Yet Armado, who arrested Costard for being with Jaquenetta, himself desires Jaquenetta, stating that "Love is a familiar; love is a devil. There is no evil angel but love", and he even plans to write love poetry to her: "I am for whole volumes in folio." Costard, for his part, is an example of the wise fool so familiar to readers of Shakespeare's work; he takes all things in stride, with an attitude of "sit thee down, sorrow."

As for the four noble men, it does not take long for their abrogation of love to go by the boards. Dumaine, pining away with love for Katharine, bemoans how "On a day -- alack the day! -- /Love, whose month is ever May,/Spied a blossom passing fair,/Playing in the wanton air" -- a statement that emphasizes both love's status as part of nature and its connection with elements of the random. Even Berowne, who claims to live "For wisdom's sake, a word that all men love", finds himself frustratedly denouncing Cupid, the Roman god of love: "This wimpled, whining, purblind, wayward boy,/This Signior Junior, giant dwarf, Dan Cupid." Cupid may be a baby-sized god, as he was conventionally depicted in Renaissance art, but the mighty always fall before his arrows of love.

By Act IV, scene 3, the noblemen, including the King, are desperately looking for a way out of their no-women vows. Perhaps it should be no surprise that they look to the cerebral Berowne for a legalistic technicality that they can invoke. Berowne is only too happy to invoke the overwhelming power of love, and to suggest that, in effect, it is simply good policy to ally oneself with this force whose power cannot be denied or overcome:

But love, first learned in the eyes,
Lives not alone immured in the brain....
For valour, is not love a Hercules,
Still climbing trees in the Hesperides?
Subtle as Sphinx, as sweet and musical
As bright Apollo's lute strung with his hair....

As in many of his other comedies, Shakespeare has great fun lampooning the pretensions of the would-be learned. Holofernes the schoolmaster (aptly called "the Pedant" in the List of Characters) tosses off bits and pieces of Latin and Greek in a futile effort to sound cultured, while Nathaniel the curate shamelessly flatters Holofernes for doing so. When the two speak with Armado, and the three try to "out-culture" each other, Armado's page Mote aptly remarks that "They have been at a great feast of languages and stolen the scraps." And when Holofernes, Nathaniel, and Armado try to put on a play for the nobles, the results don't go well: the Princess says of Armado's artificial speechifying that "He speaks not like a man of God's making", and Costard dismisses Nathaniel's unsuccessful attempts to portray Alexander the Great by saying that Nathaniel is "a foolish mild man, an honest man, look you, and soon dashed. He is a marvelous good neighbour, faith, and a very good bowler." Talk about damning with faint praise!

Reading Love’s Labour’s Lost in the context of Shakespeare’s entire oeuvre, I find myself thinking that Berowne, a lord who is exceptionally fond of repartee, may be a stand-in for Shakespeare himself. Much of this play is taken up with contests of wordplay – between Berowne and his lady-love Rosaline, between Berowne and the ladies’ attendant Boyer, between the King of Navarre and the Princess of France, between Longaville and Maria, between Dumaine and Katharine. One is reminded here of how much theatre audiences in late 16th-century England enjoyed seeing and hearing verbal jousting between and among the characters in a drama, just as hip-hop audiences today enjoy hearing a good freestyle rap battle.

If, as some scholars speculate, this is an early Shakespearean comedy, written to order for a performance at the court of Queen Elizabeth I, the prevalence of bantering in Love’s Labour’s Lost may be well explained. Imagine a noble audience half-listening to Shakespeare’s play, laughing at the puns and finding themselves to be terribly clever for understanding all the classical allusions and whatnot.

Shakespeare was good at that sort of wordplay, no question; and yet at the same time, I can’t help wondering if he sometimes found it tiresome, and felt obligated to “pun up” his plays to please his audience, even if he himself may have wanted to focus more directly on character delineation or plot development.

Even in the face of all those audience demands, Shakespeare manages to transcend genre norms and conventions and tell a story that is rich in insight regarding human character. I liked, for example, how Berowne -- deeply in love with Rosaline, and finally willing to admit it openly -- is still sufficiently filled with intellectual pride that he insists to Rosaline that he cannot woo her with "Taffeta phrases, silken terms precise,/Three-piled hyperboles, spruce affectation..." Rosaline, in reply, points out that Berowne has made poor use of his considerable intellectual gifts, describing him as “a man replete with mocks,/Full of comparisons and wounding flouts,/Which you on all estates will execute/That lie within the mercy of your wit.” And Rosaline tempers this criticism with a gentle suggestion that there might be more worthy ways in which Berowne could deploy the power of his wit -- to heal, rather than to hurt.

Boyer, observing how the women invariably get the better of the men in the play’s various verbal battles, states that "The tongues of mocking wenches are as keen/As is the razor's edge invisible"; but there's more going on here than just razor-sharp wordplay. Shakespeare knew what Love's Labour's Lost, under its deceptively comedic facade, presents in a sober manner: the fact that women throughout history, for a variety of reasons, have always had to take matters of courtship more seriously than men.

The play’s title deserves some attention. Love’s Labour’s Lost. Love’s labour is lost. The reason for the title may become most apparent toward the play’s end – for if the reader is expecting Act V, scene ii, to end with a quadruple wedding of all those love-struck lords and ladies, in the manner of some other Shakespearean comedies, he or she is likely to be disappointed. The play concludes on a note of hope for, as opposed to a promise of, future happiness.

Love’s Labour’s Lost is also distinguished as being the basis of one of the more unusual of Kenneth Branagh’s film adaptations of Shakespeare plays. Branagh’s film, released in 2000, dispenses with much of the wordplay, sets the story in September 1939, as the Second World War is beginning, and fills the soundtrack with songs from Broadway musicals of the period. Looking at all of these adaptational choices, I wonder whether perhaps Branagh found his Shakespearean source material somewhat problematic this time. Branagh was no doubt right in choosing to dispense with some of those pages and pages of badinage among the characters; but now the King of Navarre is leading his nobles not only to abjure the company of women, but also to sit out history's bloodiest and most hideous war! The King's behaviour seems even worse under those circumstances. Branagh applies the World War II context more and more directly as the film goes on, with striking consequences for a number of the characters; and while I'm still not quite sure how I feel about it all, I must say that it was a gutsy adaptational choice on Branagh's part.

All of which is to say that Love’s Labour’s Lost is a challenging play. While it is not numbered among Shakespeare’s “problem comedies,” I think one can accurately say that it is a comedy that might pose some problems for the casual reader or playgoer. Yet Shakespeare takes a story that, in the hands of a lesser writer, might have been predictable and convention-bound, and infuses it with plot surprises and insights into human character, all conveyed through the most graceful and elegant of poetry.

[Jess the Shelf-Declared Bibliophile · Rating 2 out of 5]

The first of Shakespeare’s plays for me to read on my quest to read his complete works this year, and alas, it left me bored and unimpressed. I can see how it would do better in watching the play, but it didn’t read enjoyable. Moving on to the Comedy of Errors.

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The 2000 film of this play got me in trouble because I was laughing so loudly at Shakespeare; I was told after the film, Everybody (maybe 15 in the theater) HATES you. (Guess Americans are not s'posed to laugh at Great Drama--or poetry, either.)

Arguably Shakespeare's most Shakespearean play, or interplay: the exchanges of wit, what he would have overheard at Middle Temple and among his fellow actors. Rather than the text, I'll comment on Branagh's musical version, with himself as Berowne and Director, Scorsese as producer. It's hilarious, especially for a Shakespearean; I laughed throughout so much (my laugh scares babies) that lady in the audience warned me everyone hated me. I thanked her for the admonition.

Very slow, stagey opening lines by the Prince. Dunno why. They cut the poetry criticism, and substitute the American songbook--Gershwin, Berlin--for poems. The Don Armado stuff (with Moth his sidekick) is broad, not literary: mustachioed, funny body, melancholy humor. Armado's the most overwritten love-letter, parodying catechism; but he is standard Plautine Braggart Soldier ("Miles Gloriosus") by way of commedia dell'arte. Then the Plautine Pedant (commedia Dottore) Holofernia crosses gender, a female professor type. Costard wears a suit, maybe a Catskills standup.
Branagh cuts the Russian (or fake-Russian) lingo, "muoosa-Cargo" of the masked entrance.
Wonderful 30's film cliches: female swimmers, the dance scenes, the prop plane's night takeoff. Ends with WWII, grainy newsreel footage of the year, after news of the French Princess's father's death.
Berowne (pronounced .."oon") is sentenced privately "to move wild laughter in the throat of death…" His judge, Rosaline, points out the Bard's instruction on jokes: "A jest's prosperity lies in the ear / Of him that hears it, never in the tongue / Of him that makes it" (V.end). LLL ends with death and winter (the Russian an intimation?): "When icicles hang by the wall,/ And Dick the shepherd blows his nail,/ And Tom bears logs into the hall,/ And milk comes frozen home in pails.." and the owl talks, "Tu-whit..Tu whoo, a merry note/ While greasy Joan doth keel the pot." That's the European Tawny Owl (male and female must combine for it) so an American director might replace with the same prosody, "Who cooks for youuu?"(the Barred Owl).

In the penultimate scene, Dull is onstage the whole scene never speaking a word until Holofernes says, "Thou hast spoken no word the while," to which Dull, "Nor understood none neither, sir."
Well, no wonder, if he has no Latin, for Costard offers, "Go to, thou has it AD dunghill…as they say." Hol, "Oh, I smell false Latin--dunghill for UNGUEM." The Bard kindly explains the Latin joke, essential for modern American readers.
Incidentally, Berowne uses Moliere-like rhymed couplets in his social satire on Boyet, V.ii.315ff. His most daring rhymes, "sing/ushering" and maybe "debt/Boyet."

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a bizarre play. 3 stars for now but I have a feeling this might grow on me. (Edit: Yeah, it grew on me.)

[Oguz Akturk · Rating 4 out of 5]

YouTube kanalımda Shakespeare'in hayatı, mutlaka okunması gereken kitapları ve kronolojik okuma sırası hakkında bilgi edinebilirsiniz: https://youtu.be/rGxh2RVjmNU

Kayıp Zamanın İzinde serisinde Marcel'in Albertine'e karşı duyduğu, Aylak Adam kitabında C.'nin varoluş mücadelesini aşkta bulmak için gerçek olarak sevebileceği bir kadın aradığı, Don Kişot'un şövalye romanlarından etkilenip de bir gün evinden çıkmasıyla Dulcinea'sına kavuşmaya özlem duyduğu aşkın emeği boşuna mıydı?

Bugüne kadar kıyısından köşesinden ya da büyük kısmı aşk teması içeren onlarca kitap okumuşumdur. Sabahattin Ali'ye göre dağıldıkça azalan bir şey olmayan, Proust'a göre karşılıklı işkenceden ibaret olup da Victor Hugo'ya "Sevdiğiniz için acı çekiyorsunuz, daha fazla sevin. Aşk yüzünden ölmek, yaşamaktır." cümlelerini dedirtebilmiş bu gizemli aşk kelimesi de neyin nesidir böyle?

Aşkı hep hüzün, sevgi, nefret, zevk, kıskançlık, öfke, acı, çaresizlik, şüphe ve korku renklerinin birleşiminden oluşan bir gökkuşağı gibi düşünmüşümdür. Bu gökkuşağının üzerinde çocuksu hayallerle birlikte kaymak varken aşağıdaki sonsuz boşluğa düşme riski de aşkın doğasının ta kendisidir. Sinir uçlarımızdan saliseler içinde geçen uyarımlar ve sevgilinin gözlerine bakıldıkça öğrendiğimiz, hissettiğimiz, anlamlandırdığımız benliğimiz her zaman edebiyat denilen gökyüzünde kendisine bir yer bulmuştur. Bu duygu harmanının en iyi mimarları yazarların ta kendisidir.

Shakespeare'den okuduğum 9. kitaptı fakat bazı şeyler binlerce değişimle bile değişmiyor. Çapasını eski anılara saplamış olan hafızamız, muhafızlık görevini o kadar iyi hıfz ediyor ki, yeni anılara seyahat etmek ancak ve ancak eski anılarla barışıp onlarla yürümeyi öğrenince gerçekleşiyor. Shakespeare, karşınızdaki erkek ya da kadının gözlerinin içine bakıp da o retinaya, o gözün tabakalarına hangi anılar, hangi zevkler, hangi duygu katmanları yerleştirilmiş, onları araştıran bir arkeologluk yapıyor. Ben ise tüm bunlar arasında elime küreğini almış onun bana anlatmaya çalıştıklarını bana görünen en yüksek katmandan itibaren keşfetmeye başlamış sade bir okurum.

Sevdiğimiz yeni yüzleri aklımızdaki eski yüzlerin silüetiyle transpoze etme dürtümüz gibi okuduğumuz yeni yazarları da eski yazarlardan öğrendiklerimizle üst üste koyarız. Kimlik binamızın mimarı sadece ve sadece kendimizizdir. Bunlar arasında aşk, hayal kırıklıkları, rahatsızlık duymalar, evrensel öz atmosferinde yaşanan duygusal hava muhalefetlerinin hepsi kimliğimizin iklimini oluşturur. Nasıl ki bir mimar, bir proje yaparken o arazinin etrafındaki coğrafi koşulları da unutmamak zorundaysa, biz de kimlik binamızı inşa ederken etrafımızda bulundurduğumuz erkek ya da kadınların bizi etkileyen iklimlerini göz ardı edemeyiz. Bilinç denilen bitki örtümüz böyle yeşerir.

Aşkın emeğinin boşuna olmadığı aslında aşkın emeği söz öbeğinde saklıdır. Tez ve antitezler tezatlığında devinen bu kitap gibi bizim de gün içinde hatta saniyeler içinde yaşadığımız pek çok tezatlıklar silsilesi vardır. Bir Tanrı'ya inanırız saniyeler içerisinde onun varlığını kesinkes reddetme aşamasına gelebiliriz, bir insanı delicesine severiz ama saniyesinde ondan nefret etme eğilimimiz vardır. İşte... Dante'nin İlahi Komedya eserinde biricik Beatrice'i için dediği "Bugüne kadar hiçbir kadın hakkında yazılmamış şeyleri, sevdiğim kadın için yazmayı niyet ediyorum." cümlesiyle Tanrısal bir aşka ulaşmaya çabaladığı şairaneliğinin bir sonraki öncüsü bence Shakespeare'dir. Ovidius'dan aldığı bayrağı edebiyat yarışında başarıyla çağdaş edebiyata taşımıştır.

Sonuçlar değil eğer süreçlere önem veren bir insansanız ve Tolstoy'un zevk denklemini kurarken zevkin gerçeği bulmakta değil onu aramakta olduğunu söylerken bilinmeyenlerini bilinir hale getirmeyi istediği bu aşk denilen medcezirde gelgitler yapmaya razıysanız, belki de aşkın da sonucu değil, ona atfedilen emeklerin toplamı önemlidir esas. Ne olursa olsun, aşk denilen matematikte insan, gidiş yollarından her daim puan alır. Shakespeare ise edebiyat denklemindeki bütün bilinmeyenleri, bir çiftin bakışmaları esnasında aralarındaki azotların ve oksijenlerin insana nefes aldırması gibi bilinir hale getirmek için uğraşır. Okurlar için Shakespeare bir solunum cihazıdır.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

One interesting thing about reading Shakespeare's plays chronologically is you can trace how he developed his themes. It was apparent in The Two Gentleman of Verona that he had begun to think more deeply about his female characters. In this play too his women are both wiser and have more integrity of feeling than his men. Essentially, it's a play about courtship in which women reject the advances of men. Love for men is depicted as an experience of the eye and a work of imagination. The women set about showing how superficial and self-induced is erotic feeling in the men. when they wear masks they become interchangeable to the men. The sexual conflict dramatized is thrillingly modern with its feminist undertow. Plays upon words, an evolving delight for Shakespeare, become ever more gymnastic. I'm thinking this might be his most underrated play since it's never mentioned when lists are compiled of his masterpieces.

[Whitney Atkinson · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read Act 1 through Act 4 then definitely gave up. This is the hardest play to comprehend because the vocab was really under-explained, and I really didn't like any of the characters. I saw the play when my school did a production of it but they twisted it to have Harry Potter references, and even then it was confusing and weird. I'm just not a fan.

[Daniel Chaikin · Rating 5 out of 5]

On a lighter note, a Shakespeare play on Love's Warriors flinging and deflecting sonnets, with calls to arms. As one character puts it, "Assist me some extemporal god of rhyme, for I am sure I shall turn sonnet.” Beware.

The premise is the King of Navarre (not Henry, but a reference to the then current French King) takes three friends and founds an ascetic community dedicated entirely to knowledge. No women are allowed in to distract. Alas, a princess visits on business, attended conveniently by three ladies. Four love matches spontaneously develop and the ascetic rules the king set up get deeply tried.

Love's Labour's Lost has some stage trouble because of the difficulty of the language. But it works wonderfully on the page and probably also on the stage when done well. Essentially there are three short clever but lingually difficult acts, then an Act 4 of ridiculous love sonnets, four long ones. But these sonnets are surficial and their silliness is the point. The last act, Shakespeare's longest, drops everything, plot and language, down to an easier level, includes an entire play within a play who purpose is to mock to actors. It offers a conclusion that roughly, and appropriately, shows all was for naught, hence the title. Thoroughly enjoyable and recommended with a touch of caution. Not everyone in the group I read with liked it.

-----------------------------------------------

36. Love's Labor's Lost by William Shakespeare
editors John Arthos & series editor Sylvan Barnett
Essays afterward Walter Pater, Northrop Frye (“The Argument of Comedy”), Richard David, Robert Shore
originally performed: c1595
format: 176-page Signet Classic paperback
acquired: May
read: May 31 – July 3
time reading: 11 hr 32 min, 3.9 min/page
rating: 5
locations: Navarre, Spain
about the author April 23, 1564 – April 23, 1616

[leynes · Rating 1 out of 5]

As I was reading this play my old and used copy of it was literally falling apart. With each page that I turned the binding loosened more and more... and honestly, I'm not even mad. By reading this I lost part of my faith in Willie Shakes. When I first got into his work I was highly entertained by his comedies, they were all super accessible and very quick reads (definitely not as dense as his histories) and on top of that quite light and fun (unlike his tragedies). However, the more comedies I read the more I despise them. I can't believe I'm saying this but they are too foolish for me. Most of them are so silly and ridiculous that it's almost depressing.

In Love's Labour's Lost the King of Navarre and three of his homeboys pledge to foreswear women and other earthly pleasures. For three years, they want to commit their lives to academia and study. No women, not much food, not much sleep. Dumaine and Longueville agree immediately (probably because they have no backbone... because honestly who in their right mind would agree to that? 3 fucking years? Call me out.) but Berowne is like "nah, bitch" I just like pussy too much (which is relatable of course but why was he then so easily persuaded to take the oath nonetheless). Whatever.

Pretty soon it becomes clear that the King doesn't even have a fucking brain cell because part of his rules and oath is that no women are allowed at his court (well who's cooking the food then? sorry, I'm taking my sexist ass out myself. thank you.) and the Princess of France is already on her way to visit him. What you gonna do with her? Let her sleep on the porch and risk another war between France and your tiny ass kingdom. Stupid ass. So, immediately, not even a week after his oath, the King breaks his rules by admitting the princess and her ladies to his court.

What then ensues takes fuckery to a whole 'nother level: the Princess comes with three other ladies, well, what a fucking surprise that the King has three minions as well. Berowne and Rosaline are immediately enamoured with each other, Dumaine and Katharine hit it off, Longueville and Maria are and item and the Princess and the King cannot fight their sexual tension. And I'm left there standing like: BITCH YOU HAD ONE JOB.

Adieu, valour: rust, rapier: be still, drum, for your manager is in love: yea, he loveth. Assist me, some extemporal god of rhyme, for I am sure I shall turn sonnet. Devise, wit: write, pen, for I am for whole volumes in folio.

The men, being men, don't want to admit to each other that they have broken their oaths and so they claim that they haven't fallen in love. None of them are convincing and so rather quickly and openly the King proclaims that it's now time to woe this women for good. Like??? Two days ago you wanted to start your three-year-celibacy, what happened to that, bro?

We are then exposed to the most cringy courtship I've ever seen in my life... way too many cheesy love sonnets (Willie I know for a fact that you can better than this: “Love is a familiar. Love is a devil. There is no evil angel but love.” I mean, count me out) and masquerades in which the ladies try to trick the men... and I'm like, you ain't the merry wives of Windsor, you cannot pull this off. Bye.

And then at the end Willie wants to be awfully clever by denying us four weddings (he was probably working on a budget... I mean these marriages are costly to stage, let's be real) and the ladies have to rush off in a hurry since it is announced that the Princess's father has just passed away. The ladies tell they men that they won't be available for a year but if the men are still interested in them in 365 years (...I doubt it) they'll all marry them. I mean... I can't make that shit up.

Love's Labour's Lost starts disappointingly and ends in the same fashion. Not a play I would recommend. The structure is beyond wild: the first three acts are incredibly short, the fourth act is considerably longer and then the fifth act features the longest scene in Shakespeare's entire canon. Yes, that scene alone is longer than most full acts in Shakespeare's canon. My man, what are you doing? The play also features one of the most obnoxious and annoying characters in Shakespeare's canon, the Latin master Holofernes who speaks the longest words ever uttered in Shakespeare's canon. That word is "honorificabilitudinitatibus". Shoot me.

[Tony Vacation · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another terrific comedy from everyone's favorite Elizabethan playwright. This time Shakespeare throws a curveball that conforms to the popular conventions of stagecraft at the time (courtesy of Aristotle's list of Dramatic Do's and Don'ts in Poetics) and then confounds the typical endgame scenario for a Comedy, i.e. the obligatory pairing off of every single dude and dudette on the stage into forever happy marriages. The first four acts concern a king and his four loyal lords who make a pact to study in isolation for three years, swearing off all fun and women. This pact lasts for all of about ten minutes when a princess - attended by, naturally, three of her own ladies-in-wait - with some courtly business shows up to burst their testosteronic bubble. Being the refined, scholarly gents that they are, all four of our nobleman commence with the double-dealing as they try and snag up a lady while the gettin's good. The second half of LLL goes down entirely within the fifth act, as the noblemen enact a plan involving a play within a play that they just know is bound to succeed at getting them all laid. Thankfully the women are all intelligent and independent enough to know a pack of lame hams when they see one, and so the climax freewheels into a full-force mockery of these silly, pretentious wooers. Shakespeare's banter is on fire in triple-L, with nearly every line gleefully packed with zesty wordplay and clever punning. The characters are all inspired comedic inventions, especially the men who are all unmasked as clowns for their perceptions of what women want. So not only do we have Shakespeare's takedown of academic pretension, but also that 16th century proto-feminist satire you've all been hankering for. Whew!

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Margot #4

Sometimes, art imitating life is just fun.

Case in point. Somewhere around 1593-4, a British bloke named Will heard some gossip about the French royals. A Catholic princess Marguerite or Margot marries a Protestant king of someplace with a Spanish sounding name, Navarre? Yes Henri of Navarre, I believe. Their marriage, which was suppose to mend the country just made a mess of it. Are they in love? Did they have kids? Do they love others? Who do they really love? Gossipy kind of stuff.

It sounds like the start of a joke so this bloke named Will, who just happens to be a writer of the stage, writes a comedy. Better yet, a comedy about Love. Even better, the commission is by his queen, Queen Elizabeth I, who just happens to be Protestant, and she could use a laugh or two. You see Elizabeth has a problem with a girl named Mary. Heard of her, Mary Queen of the Scots. Those royals are in a pickle and it doesn’t matter what side of the pond you are on. So when times are tough, go see a comedy.

Assemble a cast.
Start with King Ferdinand of Navarre (let’s not use the real name) and his lot of loyal lords: Berowne, Longaville and Dumain (they sound French). Add in the Princess of France (no name needed, let the audience guess) and her ladies: Maria, Katharine and Rosaline. Katharine? Dead give away. Well those ladies aren’t allowed to travel alone so add in some Lords: Boyet and Marcade (they sound so chic, no I meant French). Of course, we really need a Spaniard, Don Adriano de Armado and his loyal page, Moth. Of course, since it’s a comedy, we need a lot of extras, a curate Sir Nathaniel, the schoolmaster Holofernes (to correct the Latin, really don’t ask), Dull the constable and Costard a clown. The last two live up to their names and/or their characters.

The Plot.
The three lords of the king swear off women for three years so they can finish their studies. No distractions, please. An oath is taken. However, rumour has it that the Princess and her cohorts are in the neighborhood and, well, men are men.

The device.
Spaniards, those great lovers, can write a love letters that tweak the interest of the ladies. His letter to a country girl called Jaquenetta, is sent to to the wrong person. The King falls for the Princess. His lords fall for the ladies! Oh no their oath is broken. No, they need a ruse. Let’s be Russians (really don’t ask)! As Longaville exclaims: Shall we resolve to woo these girls of France? Bien sûr!

The counterplot.
The ladies are told of their scheme by their French lords (I knew they had a reason for being there). They decide to exchange their clothes to deceive the eager deceitful lords. What follows is a comedy of errors. A lot of punning on light and dark makes for some great rebuttals. Women really are no fools. The men? Isn’t it obvious?

I am sure Elizabeth cracked a smile or two.

[Cindy Rollins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of my favorite plays. I think of it as Shakespeare making fun of the educated class. In fact, I think this is Shakespeare using his massive imitation skills to make fun of them. Very fun play. Lots of word play.


2017 Update: Listened to Arkangel Audio and while the production was wonderful and the voices talented, it was confusing to keep up with 4 couples of roughly the same age with just voices. Better to have the book on hand when doing this one in audio.

2021 Update: Loved this even more this time. This would be one of those plays to study hard to get all the jokes. I read the Yale Shakespeare edition and the notes were very helpful. I also watched the 1985 BBC Shakespeare production and it was very, very well done. Berowne is play beautifully by Mike Gwilym and Rosaline by the sweet Jenny Agutter from Call the Midwife. I have watched the Branagh movie several times in the past and while parts of it are incredible some of the accents are off-putting along with one very weird dance scene.

[Carmo · Rating 3 out of 5]

O rei de Navarra e alguns amigos vão dedicar-se aos estudos e abdicar de prazeres durante três anos: vão comer pouco, dormir menos e afastar-se das mulheres.
Por esta altura chega a princesa de França com o seu séquito feminino. Vai correr bem, não vai?
A peça tem momentos cómicos e outros com tal linguagem que me fez sentir estrangeira.
Entre paixonites, discursos pomposos, presentes e cartas de amor entregues no destinatário errado, há uma guerra de sexos em que cada um tenta passar a perna da melhor maneira ao sexo oposto.
Quando tudo parece prestes a acertar-se, cai um balde de água fria em cima dos apaixonados casais – e de nós leitores, também – e o que devia ser um final feliz, é um final em aberto. Aberto, mas com muitas dúvidas...

[Jaksen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am currently reading all of Shakespeare's plays. This is the seventh, and most disappointing thus far.

Now, this is a comedy with immense amounts of wordplay, puns, various malapropisms, etc., so to fully appreciate this play, and unless one has an inordinate knowledge of early modern English - which I do not - an annotated version is the way to go. This is what I did. I also read a lot of commentary and criticism, both positive and negative. One of the best comments I found was that this play is the best evidence that Shakespeare is meant to be seen on stage, not read, and yes, yes, I found that to be so true. There were times I could not read more than a few pages as I had to read, re-read, read aloud, then decipher the words I did not know, the words which were plays on other words, or malapropisms on words whose definitions have changed over the last 400 years.

But, thankfully, the play is a comedy! Yet somehow the comic intent was often lost on me after deciphering, taking notes, reading and re-reading.

The story...

It concerns four young men - the King of Navarre and three of his friends - who vow to spend three years in study, and eating and sleeping very little. They forswear women, in other words, which right off the bat sets up a lot of possible comedic scenarios.

But even in that first scene the impossibility of doing this is revealed when one of them remembers that the Princess of France is due to visit and that the King cannot possibly hold to his oath if he is to greet and entertain the princess. Well he doesn't allow her into his castle, but makes her pitch a tent in the field. From then on it's all the women can do NOT to bring the men to heel. They disguise themselves in one scene and in another are entertained by the men who put on a play-within-a-play. There are various other characters, including a teacher, a curate and a fool who interact with - and often misunderstand each other. (The King falls in love with the princess and his three friends fall in love with the Princess' three ladies.) This is Shakespeare playing with the audience AND a way to show off his knowledge of words, Latin, his comedic timing, and his skill in developing characters with only dialogue and limited action on stage.

Well, about 100 wordplay, pun laden and endless, repetitious pages of dialogue later, plus copious references to mythology, (which thankfully I do know a lot about), the play ends with the ladies and princess going home to France but promising to return. Really, not a lot happens here other than the endless talking. (Okay, lots of talking = almost any play, but this was overboard.)

Reading it, I often got tired and that hated 'B' word, bored. (Bored is the one word I hate more than any other.) But I was. I kept saying: it's a masterpiece! Go with it! It'll pay off! You'll learn more about words and Shakespeare's skill than in most of his other plays and then...

I got so tired I fell asleep one day reading this in a sunny window. haha! I haven't fallen asleep with a book in my lap in over 20 years!

Still and all, the fault is mine. I might return to this play later, but for now I move on to a good solid tragedy or historical.

The play's the thing, but the thing is not always my thing.

Three stars, for now.

[Liz Janet · Rating 4 out of 5]

Three men sworn off girls, then they see hot girls. They then proceed to forget their oath.

“From women's eyes this doctrine I derive:
They sparkle still the right Promethean fire;
They are the books, the arts, the academes,
That show, contain and nourish all the world.”

[Γιώργος Γεωργόπουλος · Rating 5 out of 5]

Από τα καλύτερα έργα του συγγραφέα!! Στο έργο αυτό ο γραπτός λόγος φτάνει στα όριά του. Θεματολογικά θίγονται ζητήματα πάντα επίκαιρα για ανθρώπους που αναζητούν τα νοήματα πίσω από τα επιφαινόμενα. Η αναζήτηση της οδού της αλήθειας που κρύβεται σε αυτά τα νοήματα δεν βρίσκεται πάντα στο προφανές. Ο έρωτας φανερώνεται ως δύναμη μεταρσίωσης των ηθικοπλαστικών ιδεοληψιών σε μία θέση πυρός ενάντια στη χαμέρπεια που μας παρασύρει η μηχανικότητα.

[Mahdi · Rating 3 out of 5]

اونقدر برام دلنشین نبود... البته مترجم خودش اذعان کرده بود که کمدی‌ها باید به زبان اصلی خونده بشه و ترجمه از لطفشون کم می‌کنه... نکته‌ی جالب برای من انتهای نمایشنامه بود که به نوعی می‌شه گفت تمهیدی پست مدرن به کار گرفته می‌شه و یک نوع فاصله‌گذاری برشتی و یا مرگ مؤلف پساساختاری توش شکل می��گیره و یکی از شخصیت‌ها به اسم برون از بلند بودن نمایش شکایت می‌کنه! به هر حال همین فرم‌ها و پیشرو بودن شکسپیر هست که اون رو موندگار کرده!

[Ashley Marie · Rating 3 out of 5]

February 2020: Local staged reading was a lot of fun. Not my favorite script but a good time was had nonetheless.

Summer 2023: Local professional performance was entertaining! This script is quite the hodgepodge and you can see the threads of various other plays. I think I picked up on the vibes of such comedies as A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It, and Much Ado among others.

Ohio Shakespeare Festival

[Roy Lotz · Rating 3 out of 5]

He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument.

This is one of Shakespeare’s earlier comedies, written when his greatest works were still years ahead of him. Yet Love’s Labor’s Lost is notably stronger than the comedies that preceded it—in plot, in characterization, and in thematic unity. The play’s defining feature, however, is the exuberance of Shakespearean language on display. The wordplay dances on the edge of sense, sometimes straying into phrases so garbled as to be beyond comprehension. To pick just one example, here is a line from the first scene: “Light seeking light doth light of light beguile.” Now, perhaps the leisurely analyst can extract something from that; but the playgoer watching it performed has little hope.

This may be a rather cynical reading, but to me the play focuses on the theme of vanity. The King of Navarre decides to shut himself and his friends up for a period of three years in order to live in virtuous study. This is not done out of any genuine love of knowledge—indeed they ridicule the pedant—but with the hope of achieving that vanity of vanities: immortal fame. This plan is quickly scrapped when the men are confronted with women, with whom they promptly fall in love. Yet it becomes painfully clear that these lovers are really in love with their own reflections, addicted to the feeling of seeing themselves mirrored in loving eyes. As the mask scene makes evident, the identity of the woman hardly matters to them, just that the woman gaze back.

Though Lord Berowne is a winsome and witty character, I admit that I was more taken with the auxiliary comedic attractions: the melodramatic Spaniard, Amado, and his saucy page, Moth; and most of all the scholar, Holofernes, whose mode of speech is such a perfect satire of pedantry that I am sure Shakespeare was personally well-acquainted with professors.

The play is famous for breaking the defining rule of comedy. It ends, not with a happy marriage, but with the announcement of the death of the King of France and the consequent deferment of marriage. Indeed, the play leaves open whether the marriages are ever carried through, since two of the matches are conditional on elaborate forms of penance that the women demand their vain men perform in the interim. One doubts whether the King of Navarre and Berowne are up the task. The play is saved from ending on a note of disappointment by a very clever and lovely song that Shakespeare inserts: a dialogue between spring and winter, or between the Cuckoo and the Owl, whose rustic words pierce the affected, pretentious speech of much of the play, and return us from vain striving to the cycles of nature.

[Z. · Rating 4 out of 5]

They have been at a great feast of languages, and stolen the scraps.
-Act 5, Scene 1

This is probably my favorite of the three comedies I've read so far on my chronological journey through Shakespeare's works (the other two being The Comedy of Errors and The Two Gentlemen of Verona ), though it's also the densest and most challenging of the trio. The analysis I've read on this play makes a great deal of its preoccupation with language, the excessiveness of the wordplay even by Shakespearean standards, and that seems pretty spot-on to me. I depended a lot on my footnotes to make sense of this one, and it doesn’t surprise me at all that it’s not performed very widely today.

That being said, there’s plenty to recommend Love’s Labour’s Lost. There are a number of memorable characters, especially (for me) the pretentious Spanish courtier Don Armado, and that obsessive attention to words and their uses allows Shakespeare to have a lot of fun with the mannerisms and verbal tics of each. It’s also maybe the first Shakespeare play to really emphasize the strength and intelligence of its women, with the level-headed female characters exerting far more influence over the bombastic and arrogant men than vice versa. Finally, this is one of only two Shakespeare plays (the second being The Tempest) without an identifiable source text. That doesn’t necessarily mean Will wasn’t drawing from existing materials, but it does at least allow for the possibility that this story is one of the most purely Shakespearean of all Shakespeare’s works. The subversive final act, which defies the comedic conventions of the day by leaving its characters still single (for the time being, at least) at the end, seems to me to lend evidence to that conclusion.

Probably not the best Shakespeare to start with, but interesting and a lot of fun for those who already consider themselves fans. In the second act, a character is described who "[d]elivers in such apt and gracious words / That aged ears play truant at his tales, / And younger hearings are quite ravished; / So sweet and voluble is his discourse." The same could be said, of course, of Will.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of Shakespeare's most difficult plays, in that it is rife with archaic language and is virtually plotless, Love's Labour's Lost nonetheless is the work of a master of poetic language. H.B. Charlton analyzes the play and breaks down its arcane and obsolete vocabulary in a way that makes the play easily understood and read by anyone willing to put thought and time into it. It is, for me, one of Shakespeare's lesser comedies, but a worthwhile one for anyone wishing to know and understand the world's greatest writer.

[Melika Z · Rating 3 out of 5]

پنجمین اثری که از شکسپیر خوندم✨
با توجه به اینکه تا الان از شکسپیر تراژدی میخوندم و این اولین کمدی‌ایی بود که از ایشون خوندم، میتونم بگم خیلی از سبک کمدی‌اشون خوشم نیومد اما نسبت به تراژدی‌هاشون پیچیدگی کمتری داشت و راحت‌خوان‌تر بود.

[Kiana · Rating 3 out of 5]

حماقت درمورد ابلهان آنقدر شدید نیست که در عقلا شدت می‌یابد. به خصوص موقعی که عقل دچار جنون عشق می‌گردد.
۲.۵

[Katja Labonté · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars (3/10 hearts). I wasn’t very impressed by this play. The whole plot was ridiculous, and I have a hard time accepting ridiculous plots. I mean, really… Henri and his three best friends make a compact to study for three years and allow themselves only the plainest food… and no women. Of course they forget the Princess of France is coming to see her sick father. She arrives with her three ladies-in-waiting and of course the King and his men fall head-over-heels in love... and the girls tease them for it by pretending to be each other. It’s all so cliché and silly, and I didn’t like any of the characters, either. They were well-rounded, but I just didn’t care for them. Having read this almost a month ago, I don’t remember any content, although I assume there was some language and maybe some innuendos. I do remember there was some fun wordplay/punning, and some good humour; also some interesting remarks on pronouncing “debt” as “det” instead of “debt”…

HOLOFERNES. He draweth out the thread of his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument. I abhor such fanatical phantasimes, such insociable and point-devise companions; such rackers of orthography, as to speak 'dout' fine, when he should say 'doubt’; 'det' when he should pronounce 'debt'- d, e, b, t, not d, e, t. He clepeth a calf 'cauf,' half 'hauf'; neighbour vocatur 'nebour'; 'neigh' abbreviated 'ne.' This is abhominable- which he would call 'abbominable.' It insinuateth me of insanie: ne intelligis, domine? to make frantic, lunatic.
NATHANIEL. Laus Deo, bone intelligo.
HOLOFERNES. 'Bone'?- 'bone' for 'bene.' Priscian a little scratch'd; 'twill serve.

Overall I didn’t love the play, had difficulty pushing through, and don’t plan to reread it. It just wasn’t my cup of tea.

Favourite Humorous Quote:
KING. How well he's read, to reason against reading!
DUMAIN. Proceeded well, to stop all good proceeding!
LONGAVILLE. He weeds the corn, and still lets grow the weeding.
BEROWNE. The spring is near, when green geese are a-breeding.
DUMAIN. How follows that?
BEROWNE. Fit in his place and time.
DUMAIN. In reason nothing.
BEROWNE. Something then in rhyme.

[Jenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Our wooing doth not end like an old play: Jack hath not Jill. These ladies' courtesy Might well have made our sport a comedy."
I love Shakespeare's tongue-in-cheek, metafictional dialogue here. As the title says, love's labour is lost in this play--the men do all this work, and it might not even pay off.
I've been watching Seinfeld on Netflix. I've seen some episodes of the show before, but I've never watched the show as a diehard fan. Well, I am a diehard fan now, and reading this play reminded me of watching an episode of Seinfeld, where one character suggests something outlandish, and the other characters, instead of saying, "That's outlandish!", actually go along with it. Why not, right?
What I love most about this play is that the women are in control. They're wittier than the men. In all their verbal spars, the women always win and tease the men for it. Now, I know that back in Shakespeare's time, men played women on stage, but that doesn't change the fact that the female characters actually have the power in this play. They are smarter, funnier, and more noble than the men. In fact, they do something at the end that many modern women would benefit from trying out: they tell the men that they can't be together unless the men spend one year doing something noble and good, chosen by the women, such as spending a year in a monastery or spending the year making sick people in hospitals laugh. If not, it's over. If the men do it, maybe the women will want to be with them.
This play is such a great twist on the traditional comedy, and I absolutely love it.