"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 scene III, Love's Labour's Lost
Personal Love Confessions
I am surprised, sometimes, that I ever got married. I would say that I was too wordy of a person when I first decided that I wanted to start to date seriously. Corresponding with one young lady, I would let my tongue loose and it just wouldn't stop (She was the modest, appropriate user of language). I remember that our frequent conversations over gmail usually lasted each about 1,300 words (on average). I was really emotionally invested in that relationship... and pretty depressed when she felt like she needed instead to go on a mission, bless her heart. But it suddenly came to me (when I found that I enjoyed reading the letters that I had sent to her way too much, and found excitement in editing them and making them appear more impressive) that I was writing for my own ego. I wanted her to like me and I wanted to like myself. Pretty selfish motive, in my book.
Words to Woo, but Who?
When Biron is "selected" to give a justification for the lack of studying and the excess of oath-breaking that the scholars in Love's Labour's Lost have been doing, he alludes to Prometheus (the one that stole fire from the gods and gave it to mortals). Women have a divine fire, of some sort, he says. But, women as books, and eyes giving doctrine? Perhaps Biron means that the love for the women is like a fire; possibly, though, Shakespeare is speaking through him to poke fun at pedantry. I get the feeling he just likes to hear himself talk, rather than actually say something to a woman because he means it. This would mean his "fire" is still scholarly things, like he had wanted to pursue in the beginning. Quite the insult he gives to women, then, if this is the case. Sound familiar?
Shakespeare 1, Erik 0
Attitude and response to the "Sweet smoke of rhetoric" pervades Love's Labour's Lost. I feel that he is trying to comment on the motives behind our words, and tell me that mine were off. Am I saying things because I like to hear them? Is language supposed to be self-serving?
I believe, ultimately, that language reflects our desires. If we are stuck on ourselves, we might use flowery tongues to appease our ego. If we are selfless, maybe our language would be intentionally clear and easily understood by the audiences targeted.