by Ryan Lavoie (Circle 7)
Whether or not one has actually read A Midsummer Night’s Dream, it is a well-known fact that this is a comedy rich in love—be it mutual, unrequited, parental, etc. In fact, the word “love” (or some variation of it) is mentioned 178 times in the text and almost all of the main characters are in or desire to be in a romantic relationship. Why then, does it seem as though Shakespeare’s second most well-known love story (behind Romeo and Juliet) is full of flawed relationships that seem—at best—negatively influential with a slight power imbalance and—at worst—deeply obsessive and life ruining? Before answering that, however, I feel as if it is necessary to discuss just what kind of relationships we are dealing with.
The first couple we are introduced to is Theseus and Hippolyta. Hippolyta was the leader of a great tribe of Amazon women—fierce warriors whose only connection with men came when it was time to breed or time to kill. It stands to reason that a leader of a matriarchal society such as this would never willingly enter wedlock with a man. In fact, Theseus says: “Hippolyta, I wooed thee with my sword/ And won thy love doing thee injuries” (1.i.17-18). Ignoring the Freudian implications of the word “sword,” Theseus clearly states the fact that he has won the right to marry Hippolyta through violence, by conquering her. By today’s standards, that would fall under the categories of sexual assault or Stockholm syndrome—not the kind of love we would see in a Disney movie.
The next version of love (or lack thereof) that occurs in this play is that between Hermia and her father, Egeus. Hermia, who has fallen madly in love with Lysander, is willing to go against her father’s will and therefore, against Athenian law in order to be with this man. At first, her father’s words come across as slightly controlling when he says: “With cunning hast thou filched my daughter’s heart,/ Turned her obedience (which is due to me)/ To stubborn harshness” (1.I.37-39). Already we see a lack of paternal love and more of a proprietor’s right over his daughter. Later, his words become even harsher and downright wicked: “As she is mine, I may dispose of her,/ Which shall be either to this gentleman/ Or to her death, according to our law” (1.i.43-44). It is as if we are watching a child unwilling to share his toy—“if I cannot have it then no one can.” There is no fatherly love here where there should be.
My favorite relationship in the play (as it is more or less creepy than the other two—depending on who you talk to) is between Demetrius and Helena. Unrequited love at its finest—Helena’s obsession over this man is unparalleled to anything I have seen before. She is willing to devote herself to Demetrius completely. At one point, she says:
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; only give me leave
(Unworthy as I am) to follow you.
What worser place can I beg in your love
(And yet a place of high respect with me)
Than to be usèd as you use your dog? (2.i.210-217)
Seven lines of text may be a little too long to include in a blog entry but I couldn’t leave out a single word of this speech. It shows that she is not only willing to give up her freedom and health to Demetrius, but she would give up her own humanity. All I can say is that she’d be hard-pressed to find a Hallmark card to accurately represent this kind of love.
While Shakespeare has taken it to the extreme in these examples—and while there are foils of each of these relationships which are quite a bit healthier—Lysander says what I believe to be the very heart of the play: “The course of true love never did run smooth” (1.i.136). The main focus of this story is that love is not easy nor is it always fun; in fact, it is messy and more often than not—it does not work out in our favor. So despite the hyperbole, A Midsummer Night’s Dream does give a fairly accurate description of what love is—the good and the bad.
That’s a great observation of the different kinds of loves that exist in the play. I believe you’ve pointed out four kind of love relationships in the play: love that forces itself, love associated by familial bonds, unrequited love, and mutual love. I think using that perspective, you could also say there are a few other kinds of love: the “philia”/friendship love between Helena and Hermia.
Are you familiar with “the four loves” concept of C.S. Lewis? He categorizes the types of love under four categories: stroge, philia, eros, and agape. Storge would be that familial bond that you pointed out between Egeus and Hermia. Philia is the “friends so close we could be siblings) kind of bond I referred to before. Eros is the erotic love, which I would say sums up a majority of the love expressions in this play. The last love, agape love, is an unconditional/charitable love – where love is demonstrated regardless of circumstances. I’m not sure if we see this kind at all in the play!
Commenting on the different types of love presented in the play, along with the idea that Shakespeare seemed very concerned with what love was, perhaps his idea of defining love was answered by demonstrating what love is not. By showcasing these types of “love”, such as Theseus and Hippolyta’s conquered relationship, Titania and Oberon’s clashing opinions, or Demetrius and Helena’s unrequited love, Shakespeare is attempting to illustrate the complications that come with love and how true it can be. Providing a myriad of complications within just one play poses a critical question about how love is supposed to be and how it is not supposed to be. The reader or playgoer, through seeing these relationships portrayed, is able to decipher what makes them characteristically good or bad, and from there can determine how love should look and feel. You are correct in that Shakespeare is portraying the good and the bad in love, but I would like to extend on that and say, by showcasing these relationships in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare is also having his audience take a critical look at what love really is.
Ryan,
You say that AMND fairly accurately describes what love is, but I’m not entirely sure that I agree with that. What you call “love” I would call “hero worship,” “objectification,” or even “abuse,” depending on the relationship described. The reason for this is that, when one thinks of love, one thinks of a relationship wherein both parties are not only desired sexually, but also cared for. We can say that Lysander loves Hermia because we see him actively fight alongside her for her right to marry him, and even when he is overcome with hatred for her when under the love-spell, refuses to do violence to her even when it would have been within his rights by law. However, I would argue that this might be the only real love relationship in the entire play. While it’s tempting to view Hermia’s feelings toward Lysander as love, especially considering that she is willing to lay down her life or run away forever to be with him, her actions toward him are actually very similar to Helena’s toward Demetrius–a relationship that much more closely resembles blind worship than actual love and acceptance of another’s character–the main difference being that the former’s feelings are returned while the latter’s are not. Demetrius’s feelings toward Hermia and Theseus’s relationship to Hippolyta can both be described as possession, bordering on abuse/control, as both parties feel as if they have certain “rights” to their female partners (and Theseus even captured his wife, possibly/probably against her will). This doesn’t sound like true love to me, nor does the “Disney movie” ideal of love–probably best represented by Hermia and Lysander–that you mention. Although I can definitely see where you’re coming from with that point, when comparing it to how we think of love nowadays, I just can’t reconcile it with what I see when I read this play.
I love that you added in the number of times the word “love” is used in the play. It really does put it into perspective the main focus of the play and how it all plays out. I agree that the relationships are, for the most part, fairly unhealthy. I find myself thinking that in most of Shakespeare’s plays. I like what Timothy said above as well, about this different kinds of love. It is odd that the pure form of love, and the one that our culture is much more familiar with, unconditional, is no where to be found in this play. There is always a catch or a deal being made, and it is almost always a power imbalance. There is never any true love in the sense that we are familiar with.
Ryan,
I think you did an excellent job describing and comparing the different types of love in this play. I like how you went into detail about each type and thoroughly explained them all. Your ideas of the “good” and the “bad” are clearly accurate and continue into acts III and IV, which only represents your notion about love even more. I respect that your favorite relationship in the play is between Helena and Demetrius. I can also say that it is a little bizarre and a type of love I have never seen before. I am however more interested in the relationship between Hippolyta and Theseus. I know Hippolyta is a strong, independent women and am curious to see if she breaks away from her forced marriage.
I like your approach in breaking down the different categories of love throughout AMSND. He fatherless love between Egeus and Hermia, the humainelessness of Helena’s relationship with Demitrius, and so on are all sort of absurd. I think in their on-stage representations, to different degrees, each relationship holds a strong comedic value for AMSND. Without Egeus’ relationship (or lack thereof) with Hermia, the play wouldn’t exist, it’s a core part of the story. What seems to be the most bizarre, as you’ve mentioned, is the relationship between Theseus and Hippolyta. It’s bizarre, firstly, logically. An Amazonian queen would never submit so readily to marriage with a man, let alone admit defeat in war, as the play presents. Secondly, Hippolyta has nearly no involvement in the rising actions and conflict throughout the progression of AMSND. Her character has a nearly minimal involvement in anything that moves the story, she seems more like Theseus’ trophy than a part of the play. With this in mind, I think it’s fair to question why Shakespeare would write her into the text, and even give her the few lines that he did.
The extremes of love that you discuss and how Shakespeare expresses them almost seem desperate acts of love. Maybe it is the potion that causes the men to be desperate lovers, but never the less it is an act of desperation. You bring up great points of the different kinds of love in this play as well. I really enjoyed the line you quoted that Lysander said, about love not going smoothly, because that is actually how the love triangles/ squares work in this play.
I have to say I do think that Helena comparing herself to a dog is creepy though, and at first I found it offensive, as a woman. I was mad that she lowered herself to that point. Her want and need for him to notice her is creepy and very stalker like, if you think about it. She needs him like a dog needs his owner, and she would give up anything to have even that attention from him.
Hi Ryan!
I thought you did an excellent job describing your thoughts and ideas about the play and also the specifics in the play like how you compared the different types of love situations in this play. You actually explained each different situation so the play was clear and the reader knew what was going on. I think you have a really good understanding of this play and you are also quite interested in the play as well because of all the details you shared in your post! I love that you put this play into your own words with great detail about how you interpreted this play. Great Job!
Hey Ryan,
I’ve got to say, this is one of the most concise and to the point view points of Midsummer’s Night Dream I’ve read, especially in regards to the relationships and love or even lack their of in some instances. I’m always going to never be a fan of the so called relationship between Theseus and Hippolyta if only for the sake of mythology and how the Amazons would never willingly be subjugated to a type of marriage to a man, especially after being defeated in a battle. I have a feeling they would rather be put to death. As for Helena and Demetrius, I personally see it as my least favorite relationship in the play, if only from my own personal beliefs and not enjoying seeing a woman bring herself so low for a potential romantic partner. Don’t get me wrong, it’s easily the most interesting from a plot stand point as well as for analysis, but it’s still always going to be the one that upsets me the most.
Ryan,
First of all, I can’t believe (but love) the fact that you counted (or researched) how many times the word love comes up within the play. I found myself completely frustrated while reading this play at how love is portrayed. For me, it seems that these characters are trying way too hard and not really ending up ultimately happy. However, now that the time to read this play as passed and we have also finished yet another Shakespeare play, I have come to terms that I must just accept how love is portrayed by Shakespeare. I am sure that it will not be any different in the plays to come. However, I must admit at least the couples in Twelfth Night are happy with how their relationships end, but I did not feel that was the case for A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
Hi Ryan!
Love your post on love! I like how you outlined the different and quite complex romantic pairings in the play. I agree with your title in the sense that there is a lack of love between characters going on (or not). For example, given Oberon and Titania’s suspected infidelities with human characters, is it possible that they may reign together out of convenience rather than out of love? Additionally, the play begins with their feud over the son of one of Titania’s late worshipers. Would lovers have to result in the great pains Oberon takes to make a fool out of his wife?
I also agree with your acknowledgement that Shakespeare realistically portrays the idea of love in his dreamlike play (oh the irony!). Love is messy and this play does a fantastic job of illustrating the pains of those afflicted with Cupid’s mighty arrow. Love is unrequited as we see in the initially difficult relationship between Demetrius and Helena. Titania’s “love” for Bottom (despite having the head of a donkey) proves that love is bewitching. Finally, love is not always displayed towards another person. It instead manifests itself as a passion taken to the extreme for an activity, say, the way Puck loves to cause mischief, or the way Bottom loves being pampered by Titania and her fairy servants. It is a multi-faceted feeling, and I think your post explores it well. Thanks!
The only thing that I truly take issue with in your argument is that of the love of Helena and Demetrius. While I do agree that Lysander’s words do hold the core argument of the play, I think that the love that he and Hermia share is the only true love in it. You pointed out that Helena’s love for Demetrius is an obsession, and I think that you’re right in that. But, it’s unhealthy, and dangerous, and leads her to putting herself and her dearest friend in mortal danger. And Demetrius doesn’t show an inkling of affection to her in the context of the show until he is put under the power of the love potion. The effects of which are arguable at best. While it could be that this potion is truly from the mark of Cupid’s bow and creates a true love, it seems more like Amortentia within the Harry Potter universe: it creates an obsession that people think is love. Demetrius’s ‘love’ for her at the end is a result of this and not any real emotion of his own.