No longer considered as primarily a parody of the so-called School of Night, LLL has largely been regarded as a play about the acceptance of reality. This dissertation proposes that such a reading does not sufficiently credit Shakespeare's daring in writing a play which questions the nature of language and genre. In LLL, Shakespeare holds the mirror up to language, reflecting how it may be both properly used and abused; this theme, however, has implications which could not be contained within the traditional boundaries of comedy unless those boundaries were redefined. That Shakespeare does this is the argument of the study The concept of genre was closely allied with rhetorical tradition in Shakespeare's day; rhetorical analyses largely shaped the sixteenth century's definition of comedy. The explosion of dramatic activity in the Elizabethan era reflected the age's interest in rhetoric and debate; not surprisingly, the proper use of language and the form of its expression are themes which cross generic boundaries in the lyrical group of plays written by Shakespeare c. 1594-95: LLL, Richard II, Romeo and Juliet, and A Midsummer Night's Dream LLL expresses a skeptical attitude toward rhetoric which Chapter Two traces from Plato to the mid-seventeenth century. Shakespeare presents the abusers of language in LLL in a hierarchy: the lowest characters offend the least. The play's women, by insisting that their lovers reform their use of language, prevent any ultimately tragic mis-direction of rhetoric; they do not, however, prevent the 'sweet smoke of rhetoric' from obscuring the comic genre of the play Chapter Three examines the comic traditions which Shakespeare adapted to make this play end not 'like an old play.' Shakespeare emphasized the public spirit of comedy, requiring that both the immature courtiers of LLL and its audience learn the right use of language. Shakespeare's metadramatic techniques in the play reinforce this moral imperative Chapter Four closely examines the play from Marcade's entrance on, concluding with an argument of editorial preference for the 1623 Folio version of the play's end, which not only refers back to the play, but extends its influence outward to the everyday world