Alternate Ending - Play within the Play

            Shakespeare has a very witty way of writing when it comes to including plays within plays.  This type of device is a strong tool for foreshadowing, reflection and comparison.  There are other works by Shakespeare which incorporate plays into an already existing work, like Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew.  In A Midsummer Night’s Dream, being that the play within a play is at the very end, I can only see it to be a reflection of what could have possibly been if the fate of the characters were to result in tragedy.  Although I still have yet to come to a solid conclusion as to why the play needs to be performed, I do see it as an “alternate ending” if the play were to be a tragedy.  Not only does this idea resonate with me but it further enforces the reasoning behind Egeus’ reluctance to have Theseus choose this play to be performed on not only his wedding night, but also the wedding night of Egeus’ daughter, Hermia.  After all that has happened over the course of four short dream-like days, the fate of all the characters luckily end up in a happily ever after marriage, just as comedies should.

            Since Theseus chose to watch Pyramus and Thisbe (we all knew this play would be the choice at the end despite having an option to pick an alternative) I decided to look for a clear summary to read through about the story, without interruptions to protect the audience from fear.  Upon reading this, I see a clear representation of what could have been Egeus’ future because of his actions towards Hermia in the beginning of the play.  Egeus’ personality is nothing short of rash and selfish in every aspect possible.  Although the stories are not identical, there is still a very strong comparison between the two stories.  If the parents of Pyramus and Thisbe had let their children meet each other and allow them to love and make their own choices, the two “star-crossed” lovers would never have run away to “Ninny’s tomb” to meet one another and flee the strict rules they live under (V.I. 199).  Egeus’ is the physical representation of the parents in the play.   Although nothing is mentioned in the play/myth of the parents reactions to the situation, one can only assume the devastation and reflection certain events cause them. After Egeus hears of the play on his own time, I believe he has a realization as to what the play could do with his emotions, and that is why he tries to tell Theseus;

                        No, my noble lord,

                         It is not for you.  I have heard it over,

                         And it is nothing, nothing in the world,

                        Unless you can find sport in their intents

                        Extremely stretched, and conned with cruel pain

                        To do you service (V.I.77-81)

Unfortunately for Egeus, Theseus disregards what he says and the play is performed.  For readers, we are given the tragic element of a play that we find entertaining with a bit of comedic relief. Finally at the end, we still see the play finish with a happy ending but know the story of these lovers could have ended under different circumstances, circumstance that would have been all because of Egeus’ forceful actions as a pushy father. 

            This whole play makes me also recognize that every action has its own results, and one never knows which way the situation will end, but that would be a completely different blog post involving so much more including the fairies, Helena and other characters.  Seeing that the play is able to end happy allows the characters and readers to embrace the goodness of the play and be thankful for the ability to end happily in marriage instead of death. 

The Imaginative and Mysterious Mind of the Dreamer

In Act V of A Midsummer Night's Dream, Shakespeare explores the subconscious world that is created in the mind of the dreamer, and how such an experience relates to the conscious world. The Act begins with Hippolyta and Theseus considering the oddness of the lovers' dream. Hippolyta says, "But all the story of the night told over,/ And all their minds transfigured so together,/ More witnessth than fancy's images,/ And grows to something of great constancy;/ But howsoever, strange and admirable" (5.1.23). In these lines, Hippoltya contemplates how unusual it is that the lovers all had the same dream. These questions therefore arise: How tied are the conscious and subconscious worlds? Are dreams just internal desires and fancies finding a way to the surface? What distinguishes the dream world from reality? Upon finishing this act, I was left dwelling on the quote "All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream" (Edgar Allen Poe). In the Epilogue, Robin (a dreamlike character, a faerie) relates to the audience that the whole play was "but a dream." There is therefore a level of disbelief that remains even when he is clarifying the situation because the source is in itself a figment of the imagination.

Through looking on a few websites about dream research, I found that people have been trying to make sense of dreams throughout history with little actual progress. The human mind is a mystery. The dream world in literature is therefore a place where anything can happen, and no one can claim anything absolutely false. In the play, the lovers share and later recall the same dream. There is no definitive answer to whether this experience is possible or not (even to this day). For Shakespeare, dreams become a place where people may mediate and filter their inner desires (and essentially the inner self that is constrained by societal expectations). The dream world is a place where rules of class order, gender roles, social etiquette, etc. can be put to rest, and pure chaos can ensue with no real consequences.

Although, we may usually consider a "dream ending" to be a sort of a cop-out, Shakespeare uses the dream to strengthen his plot point. In the Epilogue, Robin says, "If we shadows have offended,/ Think but this, and all is mended:/ That you have but slumbered here,/ While these visions did appear;/ And this weak and idle theme,/ No more yielding but a dream." In this Epilogue, Robin aims to make a nice, conclusive ending to the tale that in reality creates an unsettling feeling in the audience. Robin states that nothing in the play was meant to cause offense or confusion because the whole play was simply the journey of the subconscious, imaginative mind. The problem here is that the subconscious mind is not a simple thing, and while he suggests that the play has ended, the questions and confusion has only just begun. There is something incredibly disturbing about the mysterious nature of the dream world, and never quite knowing what is real and what is not.

Marriage in various forms

“A Midsummer Nights Dream” starts with an interesting preface in my edition of the Norton. The text examines a rumor surrounding the history of the play. According to a story, the play was originally written to be performed in front of a wedding party, with Queen Elizabeth the first in attendance. The book paints a nice picture, presenting the play as an intergral part of the proceedings, commenting on the real world event through a lens of social farce. Fictional or not, this story got me thinking about what lies at the heart of this play, being mentioned in the first line; marriage. 

That hand out we read before peaked my interest. I’ve never been particular to examine Shakespeare in social context. To be fair, I’ve never particularly examined Shakespeare at all. But I’ve never noticed the ambiguity of some of Shakespeare's works, particularly the subversive elements in the language. From the get go, “Midsummer” starts as a reflection on marriage, in all its forms. 

The first act of the play, from the first scene, sets up that this will be a play about marriage, in all it’s forms. First off, we have the marriage between Thesus and Hippolyta, set up as the spoils of war. Thesus has defeated Hippolyta and her Amazons, and taken her to be his wife. The second is a marriage situation between Hermia and Demetrius, in which Hermia is betroved, and is in love with Lysander. This conflict is also another examination on marriage, that of elopement for true love. There is also the spurned relationship between Demetrius and Helena. This makes for a situation that is ideal for a popular comedy, but it also sets up a dialogue on the act of marriage itself. In reading some of the other blog posts, I found it interesting to note that marriage at this time was not merely for love, but also a way of shifting finances and alliances between families- in a sense it was also political. 

I’m looking forward to continuing to examine these themes as the play progresses. Also, I will be interesting in watching the development of the female leads, as they both exhibit interesting qualities for their time period. Hermia is extremely bold, standing up to nearly all other characters in the play. Helena may have had an inappropriate relationship with Demetrius, again, something socially discouraged for the times. I am excited to see how these characters further advance the marriage critique outlined thus far.

Why have a play within the play?

Revisiting Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream last night, after having not read it since high school, left me to ponder an important aspect of the play that I hadn’t realized six years earlier: what is the significance of having a play within the play? The very first time I read the late-sixteenth-century comedy, I was merely entertained by the ragtag troupe’s amusing performance of “Pyramus and Thisbe,” appreciating it as a humorous addition to an already whimsical and lighthearted production. Peter Quince’s gang of “actors” is utterly ridiculous; at first glance, they could be perceived as little to nothing more than comic relief among the two other, more intricate, plots of the play.

Looking deeper, however, there might be more than meets the eye. I made a connection between A Midsummer Night’s Dream and two other major plays by Shakespeare—Hamlet and The Taming of the Shrew—both of which feature the peculiar literary device of a play within the play. Clearly, there is a reason why Shakespeare uses this technique repeatedly in his works. What’s unclear, at least to me, is what that reason is exactly. (I admit I haven’t had the time to review the play within Hamlet before this blog post, and I won’t cheat by posting a summary from Wikipedia, but I do remember it as being quite significant to the plot.) The most interesting use of this device though, in my opinion, is in The Taming of the Shrew, where the entire play itself is framed within the plot of a drunken Christopher Sly being tricked into thinking he is of nobility. Though, in this particular instance, the subplot featuring Sly has nothing to do with the action of the play itself, it could have been used to relate to the audience in some way, possibly by bringing an actor in character into the audience as “one of them” watching the play unfold. It must have been amusing, and a rather realistic experience, to the Globe Theater’s audience to have a drunken Sly among them, stumbling and slurring about.

Returning to A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the frame play takes on a different role as it is housed within the larger, main play. Here, it is more of a supplement plot, but as I said earlier, it still retains significance. As we discussed in class, Shakespeare was a professional actor and playwright, and he valued the input and teamwork of his fellow actors. Trial-and-error was no doubt a large part in the compositional process of a play, and one could only imagine how painstaking it must have been to get all the parts exactly right, not to mention working together. Granted, Shakespeare most likely worked entirely with professional actors who took their roles seriously at all times, but doesn’t Peter Quince’s acting troupe almost seem like a lighthearted tribute to the whole creative process of constructing a play? I feel that Shakespeare very often dropped tributes to himself as a playwright as well as the creative process as a whole within his works; an example of which is the character Prospero in The Tempest, who is often believed to be the characterization of Shakespeare himself. I can’t help but believe that the motley crew of tradesmen-actors is his cheeky nod to the tedious-in-real-life process of writing a successful play.

A Thought Dance Through a Midsummer Night's Dream

“Heavenly as the radiant stars, immortal eyes appear, eyes which the night has opened within us.”
            --Novalis

As I was reading A Midsummer Night’s Dream this quote from Novalis came to me in an associative kind of thought which grew out of the play’s imagery. Throughout the first two Acts we get repeated moon and eye images and metaphors linked with the theme of sight. Indeed in the very first lines some of these central themes arise--take Theseus’ first words for example:

THESEUS  Now, fair Hippolyta, our nuptial hour
Draws on apace. Four happy days bring in
Another moon--but O, methinks how slow
This old moon wanes!... (1.1, 1-4)

Perhaps it would be a stretch to say that the word choice of “nuptial” recalls “nocturnal,” but I for one actually misread it as “nocturnal” on first glance, perhaps anticipating the theme of Night from the play’s title. But in any case the next word “hour” sets up the theme of Time--closely related to the movements of the moon--and also, being a homonym for “our,” it foreshadows themes of possession (by Law), metamorphosis (of identity). The word “Draws” in the next line calls two themes to mind--the obvious one being Time, the apparent passing of time (as it draws apace); the second theme is more subtle: the theme of art (to draw), which is more prevalent than we might first imagine. Later in 2.2 line 110 Lysander exclaims, “Transparent Helena, nature shows art/ That through thy bosom makes me see thy heart.” Art here has less to do with what we today consider artistic--that is, something which contains artifice and is therefore pleasurable to the intellect or our arbitrary tastes--it is rather a magical force of nature, an alchemical force symbolized in the sweet juice of the pansy. Nature’s art transforms the soul to make it capable of supernatural perception--the night awakens “sphery” eyes within us. And so a relationship forms between day and night, which Theseus hints at in the following words: “Four happy days bring in/ Another moon.” This also recalls the title: A Mid/summer Night’s Dream. “Mid” suggests transition while “summer” is a time of waking daylight and “night” of course a time of dream; as we know, the laws of Time do not apply to our dream life in the way they apply to our waking hours. Dreams are a time of vision, a time when through symbolic images--perhaps akin to fairytale pictures--our inner struggles can arise before our souls in a certain mood, and through the magical powers of transmutation, through metamorphosis, we come to see the dynamic, unfathomable depths of our beings. The powers of dream are closely linked to the forces of the moon, the sphere O which opens our inward eyes to a new reality in sleep. But although we dream most intensely in the night, our dreams--however dim they may be--stay with us throughout the day; it is just that the light of dream consciousness is like a small flame in the daylight of waking consciousness, so that we rarely glimpse these metamorphoses; but sometimes they arise and form the foundations of great art.
    Although Hippolyta says only these lines in the first two Acts, they are some of the most prescient and beautiful in the play:

HIPPOLYTA  Four days will quickly steep themselves in night,
Four nights will quickly dream away the time;
And then the moon, like to a silver bow
New bent in heaven, shall behold the night
Of our solemnities. (1.1, 7-11)

Here again we see this relationship of day to night through the movement of Time and yet there arises the question of their actual separateness--that is, are day and night truly separate or are they merely aspects of one another, as days steep themselves in night and nights dream away the time. And then the lovely simile which resonates with Cupid’s bow made of silver; silver, a metal, like steel, or to steal away from the town into the wOOds, where eyes OO awaken under the mOOn, Luna the moon (lunatic), who makes one “wood” (archaic diction for “insane”) Luna who “shall behold the night of our solemnities,” from Latin sollus meaning “entire” or Sol, the sun god whose light is reflected palely, solemnly by the moon, or solum meaning “soil” where grow the flowers of the night.
    Indeed in her words live quite poetically the themes which I stutteringly try to indicate in more abstract terms. But that is the magic of poetry: it creates in but a few lines a world of meaning.

“Our life is no Dream, but it may and will perhaps become one.”

                    --Novalis

In Act 1, we see the typical adolescent rebellion; Egeus is pressing his daughter Hermia into marrying Demetrius but she has no interest whatsoever, her heart solely belongs to Lysander. Egeus gives her the option of possible death or being sent to a nunnery, before he leaves he says to her, “take time to pause” (83) to think over her decision. Without hesitation Hermia and Lysander devise a plan to runaway. Shakespeare is hinting a sense of humor, typical youngsters going against their parents’ wishes.

Shakespeare hints more comedy through his character Helena; she acts like a complete fool because she is so head-over-heels in love with Demetrius who wants nothing to do with her. She is so in love with him that she’ll do anything to win his attention. On line 188-189, Demetrius says to Helena, “I love thee not, therefore pursue me not. Where is Lysander, and fair Hermia?” Helena exposes Hermia’s plan so she can run off with Demetrius to find the lovers.

In Act 1, scene 2, I was slightly confused with the conversation between Quince, Bottom, Flute, Snout, and Snug. I had to re-read the section and finally realized they were discussing their play for the wedding.

In Act 2, scene 1, I didn’t understand as to where these fairies came from? In my opinion it seemed random? Shakespeare’s characters in this scene seemed very childish; there was gossiping and tricks played. Puck and the fairy gossiped over the feud between Oberon and Titania; Oberon wants to make the changeling “Knight of his train” (25) but Titania refuses to let her personal attendant go. The two characters continue to bicker back and forth acting like children. Oberon is annoyed and jealous at this point so he turns to trickery for revenge on Titania. When Titania is asleep, Oberon will squeeze drops of flower juice onto her eyes and she when she awakens she will fall in love with the first thing she sees; “lion, bear, wolf, or bull, on meddling monkey, or on busy ape” (180-181).

Although Shakespeare makes his characters selfish/jealous/childish/foolish, it gives the story a sense of humor.

The Girl Next Door vs. Desperate and Lovesick

Helena is a very complex character. I do not know if I admire her persistence or fault her for it. In a modern day setting, she can be seen as the girl next door waiting for the one she loves to finally notice her or she can be viewed as a desperate lovesick girl who is willing to do anything to get what she wants. I see both of these sides in her. Helena's soliloquy at the end of Act One, scene one shows the soft, innocent side of her. I can picture a contemporary Helena sitting her room, probably listening to Taylor Swift's “You Belong With Me” when she says “Through Athens I am thought as fair as she./ But what of that? Demetrius thinks not so./ He will not know what all but he do know./ And as he errs, doting on Hermia's eyes,/ So I, admiring of his qualities./ Things base and vile, holding no quantity,/ Love can transpose to form and dignity,/ love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind,” (Shakespeare 854.227-234). Any teenager can relate to Helena because she is just as pretty as Hermia, yet Demetrius refuses to notice her and her love for him faults and all. However, on the other hand, Helena acts like a borderline stalker. Demetrius clearly tells her “I love thee not, therefore pursue me not” (860.188). She acts like she does not even hear him. There is such a thing as having self-respect and knowing when to walk away. When someone does not love another, one cannot force love upon the other. This situation calls for moving on with life. Helena, instead, continues to follow him. She shamelessly throws herself at him. She tells him in the woods, “I am your spaniel, and, Demetrius,/ The more you beat me I will fawn on you./ Use me but as your spaniel: spurn me, strike me,/ neglect me, lose me” (861.203-206). Helena will eventually have to make a choice. If Demetrius continues to ignore her, how much longer will Helena waste her energy on a man that clearly does not love her?

Gender and Power

         There were many things I found perplexing in the first acts of A Midsummer Night's Dream.  I haven't seen the play performed in a while, but as I started reading I was expecting something very light.  So when Egeus starts begging for the "ancient privelege of Athens", I wasn't sure how seriously I should be taking it.  This situation, I suppose, is appropriate for the setting of the play, but at the same time I couldn't really factor it into what my understanding of the play as a whole.  Egeus says that Lysander has "bewitched" Hermia into loving him and thus disobeying Egeus' order that she marry Demetrius (I.i.21-38).  But what I don't understand is that if Egeus blames Lysander for brainwashing Hermia, why doesn't he beg that Lysander be punished?  Then, later, when Lysander accuses Demetrius of having made love to Helena and then leaving her, Theseus says he had heard about this but quickly forgot about it ("but being over-full of self affairs, my mind did lose it"- I.i.111-113).  Why is Demetrius not held accountable for his actions and why is Egeus so casual about something that could mean life or death for Hermia? This interaction seems to set up the gender hierarchy within the play, at least for the human characters.
           The relationship between Titania and Oberon suggests that division of power is not so clean cut in the faery kingdom.  Titania and Oberon's first interaction in the play displays a definite power struggle in which neither party seems to hold much power over the other.  That Titania denies Oberon the changeling boy "perforce" shows that she has power and can exert that power in spite of her husband (II.i.26).  Also, Titania's assertion that she must keep the boy to honor the relationship that she had with his mother shows that Titania values her friendship just as much or more than her relationship with her husband, displaying her autonomy.  Oberon's mischief with the love potion is a way to undermine the autonomy that Titania displays, and perhaps to assert a patriarchal power dynamic.

Battle of the Roses: The Shifting Treatment of Women in A Midsummer Night's Dream: Act I

From the beginning of Act I, there is a clear difference between the way women an men are seen and treated.  However, this role changes by the end of the act.  A Midsummer Night's Dream begins with an ultimatum for Hermia: if she does not get married to Demetrius, she will either be killed, or be forced to spend the rest of her life living alone as a nun.  This ultimatum shows the lack of power women have in the society and time in which this play takes place.  If a woman is single, it is thought that she will not live a life of happiness: "...earthlier happy is the rose distill'd / than that which, withering on the virgin thorn / grows, lives, and dies in single blessedness." (I.i, 76-78) The word "distill'd" was interesting to me, because according to the notes at the bottom of my edition (The New Kettridge Shakespeare edition), it is a word referring to the process of making perfume out of roses. (pg 6)  In other words, it is a way to bottle and use a rose's beauty.  So, either the rose will live forever in its youth and not be wasted if she marries a man, or it will wither on a "virgin thorn" if she refuses to marry and, as a result, live her life as a nun.  Though she is given a choice, marrying Demetrius is the will of Hermia's father.  A father, in this play, is described as being, "one that compos'd your beauties; yea, and one / to whom you are but as a form in wax, / by him imprinted, and within his power / to leave the figure, or disfigure it" (I.i, 48-51).  These lines describe the absolute power a father is supposed to have over his daughter.  When Lysander, Demetrius's competition for Hermia's love, approaches Hermia's father, Egeus, about obtaining Hermia's love, Egeus replies by saying, "...she is mine, and all my right of her / I do estate unto Demetrius." (I. i, 97-98).  She is referred to as being "his" and he has "rights" over her, like she is one of his possessions.  Even though Egeus is supposed to have the absolute power over Hermia, this power is in fact not transferred over to Demetrius.  Hermia hates him, but he loves her in return.  Demetrius's one-sided love of Hermia puts her in the position of power, a complete shift from the beginning of the play, and she defies the will of her father and Demetrius by choosing to run off with Lysander.

Distractions?

It seems that Shakespeare uses side-notes/side stories as a tool in his playwriting. Having only read The Twelfth Night in addition to a Midsummer Night’s Dream, I am noticing that this is a strategy Shakespeare repeats. It as almost as if he opens his plays by displaying scenes that are loosely connected (which in turn does a very good job at throwing off the audience, in my opinion) and then slowly begins to knit the seemingly unrelated scenes together until the stories are interwoven and become one.

I feel as though the placement of these different scenes serves as a distraction from the main storyline. In this case I’m referring to the main-plot as it is presented in Act I Scene I in contrast to the side-plot in Scene II. First, we are introduced to the ruler, Theseus and his bride to be, Hippolyta. Then we are introduced to the love sick puppies: Demetrius, Hermia, Lysander, and Hermia’s overpowering father figure, Egeus. From there we are introduced to the love-triangle that Shakespeare has created for these characters as well as a general introduction to the obstacles they will be grappling with for the remainder of the play. Then we are thrown into Scene II.

Scene II introduces a whole new slew of characters. I am in agreement with Krystal’s post about the childish nature of these characters, especially in this scene. Scene II is much more carefree and a tad silly if you ask me.  As opposed to Scene I, Scene II does not really lay out an obstacle the characters are facing. Rather, it presents a task the characters must fulfill which is to perform a play for the Duke and his bride on their wedding night. The language/dialogue and behavior of these characters lightens the “impending-doom” feeling that Helena’s speech leaves the audience with at the end of Scene I.

Are these distractions actually distractions or am I just really bad at multi-tasking?  I feel as though Shakespeare is making his audience work really hard to pay attention and get a full grasp on the play. Is this all a part of Shakespeare’s genius or is this a bad move on his part? Most would have to agree that the man had a way with words, but is it wise to open a play with a scatter-brained type style? Since his plays were being performed for the general public, were these side-stories/distractions a problem for those less versed in the intricate literary strategies implemented in Shakespeare’s plays? I’m just not so sure I see the point in having a plot underlying a plot for something that is to be performed. When read, these types of literary tools are enjoyable and really highlight the skill of the writer but on the stage (in my experience at least) these kinds of methods have more potential to confuse than to bring things to light.    

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.

A Relatable and Dramatic Unrequited Love

The character of Helena has always been my favorite in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  She is the emotionally burdened, love scorned Athenian woman whom most can relate.  I view her with great sympathy rather than annoyance, even though her words and actions could be seen as pathetic to some readers.  Shakespeare represents unrequited love perfectly in this comedy of confusion found in relationships.  We have all known a “Helena” in our own lives or perhaps have been in her place.  Shakespeare’s tortured character fascinates me as she expresses questions and feelings most have felt in eloquent and unique ways.  For instance, self-doubt presents itself when one is not fortunate in love.  “What is wrong with me?” is a question that goes through the mind when someone does not prefer us romantically.   Helena places herself in an analogy to beasts and the animal world, representing her fierce emotions and the negative way she feels about herself:  “No, no; I am as ugly as a bear,/ For beasts that meet me run away for fear./ Therefore no marvel though Demetrius/ Do, as a monster, fly my presence thus” (2.2.110-13).  Helena reveals that a beast more fearsome than a bear would run from her tormented self.  Her comparison to Demetrius acting as a monster flying from her may represent an underlying and unrecognized disdain felt for him not loving her in return.    These are majorly complex emotions running through my favorite afflicted female in A Midsummer.  Helena’s comparison to Hermia is particularly relevant.  Humans have a tendency of comparing and questioning why they should bother to contend with someone.  Helena complains of a “wicked and dissembling glass” which made her compete with Hermia’s beauty (2.2.104-5). 

                In an alarming but poignant section of Act 2, the audience is made aware of the level of Helena’s devotion to Demetrius.  Helena chases her love and pleads: “I am your spaniel, and, Demetrius,/ The more you beat me I will fawn on you./ Use me but as your spaniel: spurn me, strike me,/ Neglect me…” (2.1.203-6). This impassioned language is definitely disturbing, but frankly makes me want to console Helena.  Desiring this abuse from Demetrius is her last resource in attempting to convince him to love her.  This part is quite twisted but not unfamiliar to the audience, as many of us have witnessed our own peers carrying out intense actions and speech to get love.  Obviously this section is quite dramatic which lends itself entirely to the theatre.  Audiences enjoy observing the plights of passionate characters.  With that said, in the real world this speech would be significantly more troubling.  It is effective because of the relatability factor of Helena’s situation and by it being a performance and not based on fact.  Interesting to note, animal imagery is made use of again by Shakespeare in this speech by the talk of “spaniels.”  This repetition of a theme supplements the heightened level of Helena’s untamed emotions, so animalistic and primal in their ferocity. 

                As a spectator of this complicated love game, we notice that Helena is blinded.  It is not at all dissimilar to witnessing a friend in an unhealthy relationship and seeing them not realize its horrible nature and effects. I believe Helena, if placed outside the situation, would notice her desperation and unhealthy obsession.  Fascinatingly, she mentions how all is made clear when she is with Demetrius, even though the audience understands that she is truly blinded by her affection.  “It is not night when I do see your face;/ Therefore I think I am not in the night,/ Nor doth this wood lack worlds of company;/ For you in my respect are all the world” (2.1.221-4).  Demetrius is the sun to Helena’s universe.  She mistakenly believes she is safe and “not in the night,” when in fact her love has unsighted her.  Shakespeare provides a great use of opposites by making Helena believe to be in the right when she is not in a healthy frame of mind.  Love blinding humans and making one say fanatical things is not lost on Shakespeare’s audience.  Even though I am amazed at the level of Helena’s desperation, her unrequited love is relatable and my compassion for her never waivers.  Shakespeare created an interestingly, pertinent situation perfect for the theatrical world then and now. 

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.

What's in a name?

After responding to question 6 for acts I and II of A Midsummer Night's Dream, I was inspired to delve deeper into the names Shakespeare assigned his characters and why he would do so. With help from Behindthename.com I was able to find etymology for most of the characters we've been introduced to so far.

Unsurprisingly, Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream uses many ancient Greek names for prominent characters. I'm sure when Shakespeare's plays were first hitting the stage in England most viewers were familiar with the stories and characters from ancient Greek myths. Unlike myself, much of his audience probably understood the intention behind names like king Theseus (which could possibly be derived from the Greek tithemi, meaning to set) who braved the legendary Greek labyrinth Crete. Theseus' namesake is woven straight into his character in A Midsummer Night's Dream (explained by how he won over the heart of Hippolyta in act I), but through my quick research I found that this was not the case with most other characters. In fact, I discovered that Shakespeare himself had not only popularized but invented Latinized versions of many Greek names for use in his plays.

Hippolyta's name is an example of Shakespeare creating a Latin version of the original Greek name Hippolyte (which was the feminized version of Hippolytos who, in Greek legend was the son of Theseus and the love-object of his step-mother Phaedra). It wasn't until my interest in etymology lead me to these sources that I uncovered the layers behind character names. 

I bet that Shakespeare anticipated an underlying knowledge of Greek and even roman mythology amongst his intended audience, hence why he used and altered names of kings, gods and popular mythological characters. The intertwined relationships between the origins of the names themselves (like Hippolyta and Theseus) work well to compliment the relationships between the characters. While I may not be well-versed in Shakespeare, I do know that a lot of his plays unfold messy (and at times, disturbing) relationships for the pleasure of his audience. I wonder if the etymology and mythology behind the names Theseus and Hippolyta foreshadow an unsuccessful or perhaps insestuous marriage! 

And as far as foreshadowing goes, Hermia's name (another Shakespeare original) was probably taken from the Greek god Hermes who is associated with speed and good luck; will Hermia encounter a stroke of speedy good-luck despite the effects of the love-potion given to Lysander in act II, or is Shakespeare potentially going for an ironic association? Irony is certainly a likely contender considering the etymology of Demetrius, which is a Latinized form of the goddess Demeter (it is revealed by Helen in act II that she feels she has taken on a male-role in the pursuit of Demetrius; could his femininely inspired name be a play on the stance of his character?)

We will just have to stay tuned to A Midsummer Night's Dream to find out just how much Shakespeare considered etymology and Greek mythology in the naming of his characters!

Acts 1& 2 Men vs Women

         In Acts 1 and 2 in A Midsummer's Night's Dream,  it was man vs woman in opinions about how they view the world. I the beginning of act 1, Theseus and Hippolyta are talking about their nuptial hour and Theseus says how he "wooed" Hippolyta , the Queen of the Amazons. Theseus captured her in his military conquest, that doesn't seem like wooing to me.  Theseus and Egeus make statements that make men seem more powerful than women, when in this time period that is not true. Women are just as strong willed as men are and are smarter than what some men may think. i.e Hippolyta and Titania)
           Egeus does not want his daughter Hermia to love Lysander. Egeeus want Hermia to marry and to love Demetrius, who is Hermia's suitor. Egeus complains to the Duke about his defiant daughter, and the man who "bewitched her. " It is said by law if she defies her father's wishes it is execution. Today if a daughter defied her father and wanted to make her own choice on who to love , she wouldn't  be executed for it. Parents will try to lead their children down the right path and they should embrace what ever their child's decision may be. On the other hand, I still believe in the commandment " honor thy mother and father" I sort of agree with Theseus's decision to tell Hermia to make her choice of either listening to her father or becoming a nun.

    The main point in the argument between Titania and Oberon is over the young Changeling boy, who is really and Indian prince. Oberon is jealous of Titania and how she treat the boy with motherly affection. Oberon wants the boy so he can be Oberon's  squire and not some "mamma's boy".  He sends his puck to find a flower that has the juice to put a love spell on Titania , and another "creature". Puck puts the juice in Lysander's eyes and then causes more trouble. 

    The artisans, have to put on a brief play in front of the Duke and Duchess on their wedding day.   In preparing for the play the artisans show their immaturity an not acting as an adult man would. Especially Nick Bottom, he wants to play every role in their brief play. He also misinterprets words. Flute is to play Thisbe which is a woman's role and he simply shows his immaturity because he doesn't want to act as that part simply because its a female character.

           After defying her father Hermia has run off into the woods with Lysander. Helena is lovestruck by Demetrius, he does not love her and is in pursuit of finding Hermia. Helena is pouring her heart out to him trying to prove her love for him. Puck comes along finding Lysander asleep and drops the juice in his eyes. when he awakes he sees Helena and is lovestruck by her beauty. He says he does not love Hermia.
    
    I have learned from reading Acts 1&2 ,  men and women are very different in  strength, intelligence and in rank. and never defy your parents wishes. Also never trust a puck to do the job right.
   

Childish Characters

This might sound strange, but many of the characters in Acts I and II remind me of children.  Before you assume that I am simply an education major whose mind is constantly focused on the behavior of kids, give me a chance to illustrate this idea. 

Egeus acts like a “tattle-tale” when he runs to Theseus to complain about his daughter, Hermia.  He is not happy that she refuses to marry Demetrius, and runs to the higher authority instead of taking matters into his own hands.  I think he resembles a sibling running to his or her parent after he or she has been in a quarrel.  Additionally, Hermia and Lysander both exhibit the behavior of adolescents.  Hermia rebels against her Egeus’s order.  She proclaims that she is madly in love with Lysander, and refuses to give in to her father’s demand.  Hermia’s feelings are mutual, for Lysander adores her, too.  He mocks Demetrius by stating, “You have her father’s love, Demetrius; Let me have Hermia’s.  Do you marry him” (1.1.93-94).  These lines are certainly witty and sarcastic.  Besides increasing the comical tone, they sound like something a juvenile would say.

On another note, Titania and Oberon’s argument makes them comparable to younger children.  They are fighting over the possession of a boy.  In a way, it resembles youngsters arguing over a toy.  Oberon becomes jealous, and angrily argues with Titania.  He even develops a mischievous plan to drop magical juice into her eyes while she is sleeping, for he knows it will make her fall in love with something once she awakes.  He exclaims, "Be it on lion, bear, or wolf, or bull, On meddling monkey, or on busy ape - She shall pursue it with the soul of love" (2.1.180-82).  He thinks he is so clever coming up with a naughty plan in order to get what he wants - the boy.  Her attention will be focused on chasing her new foolish love that he will be able to snatch his "charm."  Does this sound like a child creating a sneaky plan to get to the cookie jar?

Nick Bottom is especially infantile.  First of all, he misspells and incorrectly pronounces words.  Furthermore, he wants everybody else’s part in the play that the artisans are preparing for the wedding.  When Quince assigns roles, Bottom immaturely interferes.  He is asked to play Pyramus, but attempts to snatch the parts of Thisbe and the Lion as well.  Bottom’s actions mirror what many children would do in that situation.  They always want what others have.           
              
Could this all have been part of Shakespeare’s strategy as a playwright?  In other words, perhaps developing and emphasizing the child-like nature of his characters was one way that he intensified the comedic nature of the play.  His goal was to appeal to the audience, and I am guessing that many people watching his plays were parents.  Parents probably find the conduct of his characters especially comical – and even relatable – since they witness such actions on a daily basis.  On the other hand, maybe Shakespeare did not do it in order to appeal to the parents of his audience.  His writing might simply be making a statement regarding our human nature:  we can never completely grow out of childish behavior.  Every one of us will act silly or foolish at certain times, whether it is intentional or not.