Offended by the apology?

            Robin’s epilogue at the end of A Midsummer Night’s Dream is intriguing. Shakespeare seems to have ‘jumped the shark’ in suggesting that all was a dream at the end of the play. Why would Shakespeare end the play by saying it was all a dream and then apologize if it offended? It may have been because of the strong female characters that behave uncharacteristically for the time.  The apology, “Gentles, do not reprehend. If you pardon, we will mend” (5.2.7-8) could be intended for the men in the audience who will have to deal with the aftermath of women who are inspired by Hermia, Helena and Titania.

            A female character publically opposing her father must have been controversial. Women of the time would have been awestruck by Hermia’s defiant behavior towards her father. They might have been inspired by Hermia’s stance on not marrying someone she doesn’t love. Hermia statement, “Ere I will yield my virgin patent up Unto his lordship whose unwished yoke. My soul consents not to give sovereignty” (1.1. 80-83) could have planted seeds of rebellion in young girls.  Hermia does not waiver in her defiance and is prepared to live a life of chastity if she cannot have the one she loves. Could Shakespeare have been accountable for young women of the era standing up to their fathers and taking control of their own destinies?

            Helena’s character could have also gotten Shakespeare into trouble. While I love Helena she is the epitome of obsessed even in today’s world.  She doesn’t pursue Demetrius shamelessly, “Your wrongs do set a scandal on my sex. We cannot fight for love as men do;” (2.1.240-241) she admits she is behaving unabashedly yet she does not yield in the face of rejection. If Helena’s behavior is a part of the offense and included in the apology how does it reconcile with the fact that she gets Demetrius in the end? If I were an impressionable young girl in the audience I might think that if I super stalked someone I could end up with him.  

            Titania is yet another female character that defies  male authority. Robin tells the fairy that Titania  forcibly “withholds the loved boy” (2.1.26) from Oberon. Like Hermia and Helena, Tiatnia carries out her assertion until she is tricked into giving the boy up.  In class we discussed the interpretation of the relationship between Titania,  her voltress and the mens’ merchant ships.  The notion of  women being more valuable than men because of reproduction seems to be what Shakespeare would have needed to apologize for most of all.  

            I wonder how the dream was received in Shakespeare’s time. I think it was a crafty way for him to get his ideas across and save himself from public scrutiny. Today’s audiences don’t seem to appreciate the ‘dream’ explanation. We want to be told what it means rather than finding the meaning ourselves.

The Pursuit of Love

The central theme of A Midsummer Night's Dream is love and its powerful force. The female characters Hermia and Helena show what they would do in their pursuit of love. For Hermia, I thought she stood her ground with her father when she refused to marry Demetrius. She states in 1.1.79-82, “So will I grow, so live, so die, my lord/Ere I will yield my virgin patent up/Unto his lordship whose unwished yoke/My soul consents not to give sovereignty” (851). Hermia shows she would rather risk death than to be forced to marry someone she doesn't love. It was courageous of her to run away to the woods with Lysander. I was a bit surprised by her prudish behavior with him when they meet because she states in 2.2.63 “Lie further off, in humane modesty” (863). I thought because she fought to be with him there would be more passion for between them. She shows she is still somewhat concerned about how she may appear and this shows she has modesty. It shows that although she is defying her father she still has respect for herself. Modesty is not a word I would use to describe Helena in her pursuit of Demetrius. I was embarrassed to read about her antics when she was interacting with Demetrius. She didn't seem concerned that she was making a fool out of herself especially as she was running after him in Scene Two, Act Two. I also thought she was being devious when she plans to run and tell Demetrius about Hermia and Lysander running off; hoping“To have his sight thither and back again” (854). Why does she thinks her actions will change his feelings toward her is ridiculous especially because he already had her as a mistress so she has served her purpose. Demetrius made it clear he wants nothing to do with her because he says “I charge thee hence, do not haunt me thus” (864). I wonder how much humiliation she was willing to receive. I felt like she kept putting herself down as she questioned Hermia about how she attracted Demetrius. Then again, could she have been mocking Hermia? Maybe she was being sarcastic when she states in 1.1.88-89, “My ear should catch your voice, my eye your eye,/My tongue should catch you tongue's sweet melody” (853). It seems as though Helena wants to be like Hermia in hopes of getting Demetrius' attention. Perhaps if she backed off and showed disinterest as Hermia does he would want her more.

Marriage as Economics and Safety

Our attitudes towards marriage and romantic love are byproducts of social and economic changes in the past couple of centuries. We are prone to believe that marriage for love is greater/superior than marriage for money or power, that these are different things, and that personal choice in marriage partners outweighs family input. That is why when I first read over Act 1 Scene 1 I felt for Hermia in her wanting to marry Lysander against her father's wishes.  Egeus was obviously being unfair in his discrimination against Lysander even though he (according to himself) is "as well derived as he [Demetrius], as well possessed," with "fortunes every way as fairly ranked if not with vantage." (1.1.99-102) By 21st century standards Egeus was being downright evil, even going so far as threatening to have his daughter killed if she will not comply with his wishes. My ill feelings toward Egeus and Demetri were made worse when Lysander states and no one disputes that Demetrius had previously been engaged to Hermia's friend Helena who was and is still madly in love with him. 

After reading "Marriage and Money" and then rereading the first couple pages of Act 1 I realized I might have judged Egeus too harshly. In the sixteenth century when A Midsummer Night's Dream is set marriage was a way of ensuring inheritances and the safety and well being of offspring so it was a family decision. Marriage was an economic move and a social one, marrying into a certain family might raise your social class or your children's social class. Families marrying off daughters needed to provide dowries so the couple could be comfortable. There were even dowers, the husband's inheritance from his father when he died,  that the wife would inherit if the husband died before her ("Marriage and Money, 266). Egeus was just trying to marry off Hermia to someone he thought would be able to take care of her. The fact that Demetrius had already been engaged just proved that he was good enough to be married to. Because Egeus had spent time with Demetrius and not Lysander even if their qualifications were identical Demetrius would earn Hermia's hand in her father's eyes. He is trusting his daughter's safety and his grandchildren's safety to a man he is positive can keep them well.

Hermia's ultimately childish decision to not even consider her father's feelings or reasoning and running away instead of doing what is best for her family was what completely changed my mind about her character.  Also Lysander is going to try to convince his rich childless Aunt to give him all her money which is just as despicable. I'm rooting for Hermia and Lysander to get away together because they really deserve each other.

Love?

Helena loves Demetrius, who loves Hermia, who loves Lysander. At first this seems like your mundane, high school love triangle, or should I say love square. However, upon closer inspection, what emerges is a glimpse into a society with a dichotomous view in regards to feelings of love with respect to a man and with respect to a woman. Several moments in Acts I and II of William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream convey the idea that a woman in love is somehow more compelled by irrational, fleeting fancies and foolish whims, while a man in love is driven by logic, sense, and reason.

First Egeus, father of Hermia, complains to Theseus that Lysander has somehow “bewitched the bosom of [his] child,” insinuating that Hermia is not in love of her own accord, but rather entranced by Lysander (Shakespeare 1.1.27). Despite Hermia’s articulate attempts at both validating her sentiments and championing her right to choose love on her own terms, she is told to “question her desires,” and is harshly reminded that, ultimately, her father has final say (Shakespeare 1.1.67). She is treated as though the love she supposedly feels is superficial and fleeting, and that if she succumbs to the whims of her father, she will suddenly discover that what she thought was love was actually nothing of the sort. Thus, the supposed “logical” question is posed to the “irrational” girl – life without love, or no life at all?

Helena too, is depicted as someone whose love is both irrational and fleeting. During both Acts I and II, we are repeatedly allowed into the thoughts of Helena, whose soliloquies are filled with so much love and pain, that as a reader you feel almost embarrassed to voyeuristically witness her heart wrenching lamentations. At face value she seems obsessed with Demetrius, openly willing to forego everyone and everything for the simple gift of being able to be near him. Yet, it cannot be forgotten that at one point her love was reciprocated by Demetrius. Why is it that her love is considered fleeting and irrational? Late in Act II, when Puck unknowingly applies the love flower to Lysander, and he awakens to the realization that it is Helena, not Hermia, that he loves, we see his love validated by logic. Demetrius tells Helena that he was young until that very moment, and that he was “ripe not to reason,” but now that he is able to understand reason and logic, they have “become the marshal to [his] will / And leads [him] to [Helena’s] eyes” (Shakespeare 2.2.124, 126-127). Again, whose love is fleeting and irrational?

These ideas open to a host of questions. Was Shakespeare mocking the belief that men are lead by logic, while women are lead by emotion? Is love ever really logical? Is love ever really irrational? Just because Helena’s love is unrequited, is it any less pure? And finally, is it possible to really be in love with someone, if they don’t return that love?