In "A Midsummer Nights Dream," I constantly found myself asking 'Why does Demetrius love Hermia?' It either has something to do with her looks, or her status, or even a mixture of both, but is that really enough for him to be declaring love, and so adamantly? The whole idea of the juice from a special flower having the ability to control who a person falls in love with has me questioning the true feeling of all the couples in this play. I've always had this idea of true love not having the ability to be hindered or changed, and as something that can overcome anything, even a potion.
In "Twelfth Night" as well I don't believe Orsino or Sir Andrew are really in love with Olivia for who she is as a person in a deeper sense, but rather for who she is in society. Sebastian as well. He didn't meet Olivia or even know of her existence until the day he married her. I can't comprehend how this can be considered normal or even socially acceptable. Did true love hold such little meaning in marriage at the time? or was their definition of love only relating to status and appearance?
In "Much Ado About Nothing," we come across Hero and Claudio. Neither of them speak with each other until deeper into the play, and she is wooed for Claudio by another man. Yet all the same they are due to get married almost immediately afterwards and they both seem to be ecstatic at the prospect. Possibly having to do with the fact that getting married was important during the time of the play and having nothing to do with actually being in love.
On the other hand, the relationship between Beatrice and Benedick is probably the closest to 'legitimate' i've come across in a Shakespeare's play thus far. This mostly having to do with the amount of time and the connection involved in their relationship. It is mentioned that the two have a history, suggesting that they've known each other since before the time of the play, leading us to believe that there may have been a previous connection between the two. Their bickering though seemingly hateful, i believe underlies love more then anything.
It may be argued that they were tricked into loving each other by Pedro and the others, but i would argue that they have always loved each other but they just didn't know it. They are both stubborn characters and i am sure they were both under the impression that they were hated by the other, which is why i think they needed to be 'tricked.' Their relationship leads me to wonder why there are so many shallow relationships in the Shakespeare plays that i know of when he was clearly capable of creating a relationship that i believe can be considered true love?
7 comments:
When first reading your post I truly did side with you and I understand where you are coming from. There aren't any "true" symbols of love within most of Shakespeares play. Primarly, that made me believe that Shakespeare himself might not believe in love by when one thinks about it during that time what was love? It was a business deal in its bare form. This I believe is what Shakespeare is touching upon when he portrays the several relationships that seem shallow and pety.
I don't think that love in Shakespeare's plays is how we would perceive it today. I agree with everything you've said, but I think that love was primarily defined by looks and social status as you've mentioned. The characters seem to be too fickle to actually take part in true love. I think this is what makes Shakespeare's plays fun and enjoyable. He ridicules what love is meant to be.
Like Victoria and Tiffany have said in the posts before me (and we read about in “Marriage and Money” from the Bedford Companion) marriage in the time was so based on social standing and business deals.
I agree with you that Shakespeare was definitely capable of creating a true and amazing love but so far in the plays we have not really seen characters with that depth. It's ironic that his plays that are so detailed and have much to interpret but are filled with such fickle roles.
In the plays the characters are so lame in their reasoning's for love! Your post got me thinking about what the audience wanted to see. Maybe since marriage was such a business deal, everyone wanted to see a play with easy and unquestioning thoughts of love since they themselves were not able to enter into a marriage based off of "true love"?
I found your perspective really interesting because it contrasts deeply from my one. While I agree with you that there are many Shakespeare couples that could never be in "true love". I do not think that none of his couples are incapable of true love.
I know this is a super cheesy example, but I think Romeo and Juliet most clearly displays this. Yes they are young and he totally drops Rosaline for Juliet, but the poetry of his words makes up for it. I think it was literary critic Harold Bloom that postulates that Juliet is the most emotionally mature and giving of the Heroines. He uses the line
omeo and Juliet, Act II, Scene II
"My bounty is as boundless as the sea, my love as deep; the more I give to thee, the more I have, for both are infinite."
If those words don't express true love than I don't know what does...
One of my favorite exchanges that I think truly expresses love in shakespeare comes from As You Like It
ROSALIND
But are you so much in love as your rhymes speak?
ORLANDO
Neither rhyme nor reason can express how much
Shakespeare knows when the rhyme speaks and when it means nothing. Like between Claudio and Hero there is nothing but between Beatrice and Benedick their rhymes speak.
ahh I hope some of that made sense...
This is a really interesting topic, as the multiple comments testify, and you raise nice points, Emily. There is a contradiction in these plays because, remembering Bendick's line, "the world must be peopled!", and the only way for this to happen is through the institutions of "love." But that doesn't mean that it's always easy. "Pleasure must be paid," as procreation must, it seems!
Post a Comment