In the theater of Ancient Greece, Comedy and Tragedy would
never intermingle, yet in Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer’s Night Dream,” it
definitely does. Act V begins with Hippolyta and Theseus discussing the
“strange…fantasies” that four people all had the same weird dream
(5.1.1,5). The strangeness is that it is
unlikely, if not impossible, for four people to have the same dream. Hippolyta thinks that these are not just
figments of imagination but more that the two couples have been transformed even
if she does find the idea of it entrancing.
Nevertheless, they are to think of how to kill time before the party is
over and they all get to go to their beds for their first marital sex.
They decide on a paradox, a play that is “tedious brief” of
“tragical mirth” (5.1.56-57). Despite
all the complications that occur in Acts I-IV—Hermia and Lysander eloping,
Lysander and Demetrius both falling for Helena after receiving magical love
potion on his eyes, Helena imagining they are all playing a trick on her, the
Fairy Queen Titania falling for a “rude mechanical” with an ass’s head, and
finally all undone so that Hermia and Lysander are back in love, Demetrius and
Helena are now in love, and Oberon gets the changeling boy from Titania—now in
Act V, we find Theseus deciding that “simpleness and duty” will make a play, life
good. In fact, Quince says in the
Prologue that they will “show our simple skill” which includes telling the
audience what will happen during the entire play. Paradox even to the point of oxymoron is used
in this Act. For instance, when Bottom
(as Pyramus) says, “I see a voice” and “I can hear my Thisbe’s face,” it is not
only comic but lends to the supernatural feelings Hippolyta refers to at the
beginning of the play (5.1.190-191). The “brief” description of the play seems
not to be a part of it. This is seen
when Starveling enters with a lantern, thorn bush and a dog and yet has to say
to the audience that he is the man in the moon which makes sense but why
indicate that both the thorn bush and dog are his? The point is negligible and
tedious but not brief. Furthermore,
although Hippolyta says, “I hope she will be brief,” Flute as Thisbe gives a 24-line
response before she too commits suicide (5.1.305). The play itself is a paradox as it ends with
a happy rustic dance at the end of the tragedy of two lovers committing
suicide.
Although the plot seems to have been already resolved with
all three couples happily marrying, Bottom, breaks the fourth wall several times
in Act V, but the break is toward the audience of the Duke, Hippolyta, and the
rest of the marital party, not to the actual audience. For instance, when Theseus says the wall
should “curse again,” Bottom speaks directly to the Duke giving away the next
parts of the play (5.1.180-181). This is
either a sign of insecurity on Bottom’s part or fear that the Duke is losing
interest, both could lead to a loss of money for Bottom. Bottom does it again at the end of the play
when Demetrius says that the Wall too could help to bury the dead couple by
responding, “No, I assure you, the wall is down that parted their fathers” and
asking, “Will it please you to see the epilogue or to hear a bergamask dance
between two of our company?” and so the play ends with a comical dance having
nothing to do with a tragedy of two lovers having committed suicide
(5.1.337-339). To me, the purpose of the play was to show that, like marriage,
a play needs to remain flexible. It is better to sway with the willow than hold
straight like the oak.
Yet another paradox in this play ends it. Puck tells a scary story that leads to fear
of night and the recognition that Robin Goodfellow, or Puck, is actually a
frightening fellow although he will help with the cleaning as he is to “sweep
the dust behind the door” (5.2.20). Oberon gives blessing on the children to be
conceived this night, all three couples will have a happy marriage, nature
won’t cause problems, and their children will be healthy. Now, although this
should be the happy ending all comedies have, Puck ends it with the tragedy
that this was all just “a dream,” as if life has no supernatural fairies
helping them out to ensure a happy marriage and healthy children (Epilogue.6).
Finally, although funny and at times not (although not
tragic), “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” is neither a comedy nor a tragedy. Shakespeare has developed an even more complex
and unique play than a mere comedy. He
leaves the audience thinking rather than just laughing.
2 comments:
This post is as accurate and informative as it is thought-provoking. You attentively highlighted and discussed instances of paradox within the play, some of which I noticed myself but none of which I could have explained as eloquently as you have. I particularly enjoyed reading your breakdown of Pyramus and Thisbe, where you pointed out several instances of paradox through a detailed close reading. You bring up some really good points about the play as a whole, namely the question: is it only a mere comedy? I totally agree with your perspective; I, too, believe that Shakespeare was trying to achieve much more than entertainment in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The play tends to raise more questions than answers, and this is what always fascinated me about it. So often, readers dismiss Midsummer as Shakespeare’s “trippy” or “ridiculous” play, but that is only how it might appear on the surface. Obviously, when one really examines it deeply, there is so much more to be found. I believe what you concluded is correct: Shakespeare was making several profound statements in this play (on society, on time, on love, etc.) well beyond the entertainment purposes of a mere comedy, and it certainly gets an analytical audience thinking.
I really like the idea of the play's central figure of speech being the paradox in this final act. This makes sense of the mechanicals' blundering, as well as of the overarching problems of comedy and tragedy. A very nice connection of these ideas!!
Post a Comment