One of the many themes and motifs that play a prevelant role in Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, is that of gender fluidity, androgyny, sexual ambiguity, and possible homoerotic relationships. What is interesting about how Shakespeare tackles these topics is how he is able to create something of a sexually charged chaotic atmosphere amongst multiple characters, all simply due to the fact that one character (the character in question being Viola) disguises herself as a man. It is also interesting how Shakespeare manages to almost break artistic barriers in the sense that his use of heterosexuality, androgyny, and sexual ambiguity show that the links between love and attraction are more vague and grey than society as a whole might like for us to think. It is known to the audience that Cesario is actually Viola, but simply due to her way of dress, and way she acts, Orsinio is still very attracted to her, despite this. Not to mention the fact that Olivia is also very attracted to Cesario/Viola, and simply sees her as an androgynous man, with no thought being given otherwise. It should be noted that when the play is performed in today’s productions, Viola is still played by a man, despite the fact that women now frequently play female roles in the shows, adding a further layer of sexual ambiguity to the show. This could play upon the audience’s expectations, and challenges them even further.

The play is filled to the brim with misunderstandings, mix-ups, and miscommunications that contribute to an overall feeling of confusion and madness. However, the fool character in the play manages to use language in order to remain removed from the mess. In Twelfth Night, the fool continually challenges the reader and fellow characters to re-conceptualize their definition of what a fool. Calling himself a “corrupter of words,” (1944, line 31) he proves throughout the play that being the fool may be one of the smartest moves one can make.

In scene I act V, the fool engages in some “good fooling” (1924, line 29) with Olivia in an attempt to regain a position on her good side. While their conversation is quick-witted and entertaining, it also nuances some deep concepts regarding the true definition of ‘fool’. When Olivia orders for the guards to take the fool away because he is “dry” (1925, line 35), he is able to finagle his way out of the situation through using clever language. By choosing to interpret ‘dry’ to mean being thirsty, the fool is able to switch the subject and remain in Olivia’s presence.

Furthermore, during this scene, he goes so far as to prove that Olivia is a fool. Due to her status and portrayed disposition, the reader would never consider her as anything but regal and intelligent. However, once she begins engaging in some banter with the fool, her true foolish nature is revealed. While this behavior is typically unflattering and calls for immediate reprimanding, the fool is able to get away from the situation scratch-free.

This being said, looking at the way in which the fool uses his mastery of language to avoid tricky situations or successfully manipulate others; do you think it is correct to call him a fool?

Cross dressing as a plot device isn’t a rare thing in Shakespeare’s plays. The case in Twelfth Night of Viola disguising herself as Cesario gives us important insight to a main theme of the play; double meanings in language and the external element of identity. She also provides us with a more contemporary interpretation regarding the gender binary and androgyny. Did you ever notice how whenever a female character cross dresses as a man in Shakespeare, that character has half the other characters fall in love with them? It’s because gender ambiguity is hot. It reveals a lot about characters like Olivia who fall in love with barely disguised women. Olivia also spends the play shirking the affections of other men. Sexual identity may not have been understood in Shakespeare’s day the way that it is now, but Maybe Olivia’s attraction to conventionally masculine men, or even men in general, is not there. Perhaps Cesario’s androgyny is what attracts her, and is the thing that her suitors are missing. In their initial encounter, Cesario calls Olivia very beautiful. This is not something that would be necessary of him as a messenger, but he does so. One can wonder whether Viola is speaking in her genuine voice here. If the other characters find Cesario so alluring, what can we say about Sebastian? Cesario looks exactly like Sebastian in face and in clothing, unlike Viola who only has Sebastian’s face. Sebastian must either have the face of a woman, Viola the face of a man, or there is no such thing as either a man’s or a woman’s face. If the female Viola cannot be distinguished from the male Sebastian while she is in disguise, what does gender have to do with their identities at all. If they appear the same aside from their clothing, if they can have the same mannerisms, why does being male and female make them so different? When we take away the social expectations and perceptions of gender, what do we have left that makes men and women so different from each other?

Primarily through Feste, the play uses the double meanings of words and titles break down established binaries, particularly of social class. This class binary works in a similar way to the gender binary surrounding Viola. With a disguise, Feste appears to Malvolio to be a scholar. Malvolio has already insulted Feste early in the play, disregarding him because of his social stature. Then Malvolio cannot tell that the scholar he encounters if actually Feste. Where Malvolio once tried to push Feste out of Olivia’s residence, he now begs Sir Topas to come and help him. If a nobleman like Malvolio cannot tell the difference between a fool and a scholar, what is the difference between a fool and a scholar? Two exact opposites, one known for his stupidity and occupation of servitude, one known for intelligence and social significance, a fool and a scholar are separated only by the clothes they wear and the way they act. Much like the chasm between genders appears much smaller when social assumptions and expectations are stripped away.

Shakespeare succeeds in displaying countless themes and motifs throughout Twelfth Night, however my favorite would have to be his representation of love, or at least the concept of it. Most of our important characters feel, or at least say they feel, the strong and important emotion of love, and I simply love Shakespeare take on it. Love for the characters in Twelfth Night is all very sudden and sporadic; almost a physical thing that is affecting them. Orsino says at one point that his appetite for love sickens him (1.1.1-3). Viola comments in reference to her newfound love for Orsino that she is a desperate state for her master’s love (2.3.35-36). Antonio also seems to be greatly affected by Sebastian that he says in act 2 scene 2 “if you will not murder me for my love, let me be your servant”.

Love seems to be something that the characters are suffering from, as if it’s a disease that they are all just suddenly catching. They are also willing to risk a lot for it, as we find later in the play that character’s love interest will lead to violence. In Act V Scene I, Orsino threatens to kill Cesario for being Olivia’s apparent lover. Also, the whole reason Antonio is arrested is because he was found after seeking to protect who he thought was Sebastian and was really Cesario. When Cesario doesn’t give him his purse to pay off his bail debt, Antonio expresses how hurt he is, and compares the thought of Sebastian betraying him as misery (3.4.216).

By the end of the play, our four main lovers are now in content relationships; one’s that were not formed until the very last scene. The easy swap both psychologically and emotionally for Olivia and Orsino to love the twin they end up with is the icing on the cake of one of the most melodramatic Shakespeare plays I have ever read. To make all of these character so able to change their emotions so easily not only makes the plot that much harder to predict, but is also a wonderful display of love as more of an idea than as a feeling.

The theme of ‘the lunatic, the lover, and the poet’ is certainly extremely prevalent throughout Twelfth Night in the sense that a kind of ‘madness’ inflicts many of the characters in the play. Particularly, Malvolio’s experience shows how the use of words is central to this madness. The concept here is that words can be used to anyone’s advantage, but can just as easily confuse the mind and twists meanings so well that words cease having meaning. Feste highlights this conundrum well in his lines at the beginning of Act III, when he states this in regards to explaining his reason for questioning:

Troth, sir, I can yield you none without words; and
words are grown so false, I am loath to prove
reason with them.

I found this line telling because it shows the paradox of using words to explain yourself. Feste knows that his power does not lie in wealth or in his bloodline, instead, he gains his influence through knowledge, and being able to entertain by presenting the truth in an insightful way. However, he also knows that this ability is almost an act of deception. Rather than presenting a list of facts, Feste has the skill of taking facts and making people look at them in another way. In the same scene, Feste managed to twist words on their head in a humorous way in his own defense. When Viola tries to degrade him by mentioning he is Olivia’s fool, he retorts:

No, indeed, sir; the Lady Olivia has no folly: she
will keep no fool, sir, till she be married;

Essentially he twists the words to make fun of husbands, which at the time Feste is likely under the impression that Viola is Cesario, potentially Olivia’s future husband. We see this happen in more depth when Feste begins to interact with Malvolio. Malvolio calls for the fool, demanding his help, and asserting that he is just as sane as Feste so he ought to be let out. Feste retorts slyly saying:

But as well? then you are mad indeed, if you be no
better in your wits than a fool.

Again, Feste turns the words on their head, but here he makes a really important point about the previously referred to ‘madness.’ He shows that madness is a subjective affliction, essentially proposing the question: Who gets to decide who’s mad and who isn’t? Especially when so little of madness has to do with evidence, and so much of it has to do with the opinion of those who are calling you mad. The power lies in words, and the way they are used to ones advantage. Surely, Feste and Malvolio are no idiots. The difference between them lies is their passion. Malvolio who is otherwise extremely sane albiet a little stiff, has grown mad because these words involve something he cares about deeply, his love for Olivia. Surely, if Feste had such passion, his words too would sound insane. And this is ultimately the point that Feste succeeds in making, even though he is being sarcastic. It’s that nothing separates the madman from the sane man besides what everyone else thinks about them.

To say that any element of William Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” is problematic or unrealistic simply based on the premise alone is not enough to hold any issue with the work itself. Not withstanding the fact that the entire premise of the play revolves around that of fairies tampering in the love affairs of young Athenian, what can be possibly construed as silly, are the actions of those same young Athenian lovers. In Act III Scene II line 115, Robin exclaims, “Lord, what fools these mortals be!” The actions of Demetrius, Lysander, Hermia, and Helena, while noble at times, are, for lack of a better word, silly. It is known that Lysander is deeply in love with Hermia and intends to run away with her since Hermia is expected to marry Demetrius, despite the fact that Demetrius once loved another woman. It is also known that Helena is in love with Demetrius despite the fact that Demetrius also intends on marrying Hermia. While the three aforementioned characters are set in their ways regarding their intentions to marry the ones that they are love, or proclaim to love, Helena is almost thrown to the wayside in an almost comical manner that can only be taken seriously in a piece of work by Shakespeare.

This also brings about the hilarity of the four characters’ immaturity, as Hermia and Helena, two characters who were once friends, are engaged in a bout of vicious verbal warfare. In Act III Scene II Helena says to Hermia in regards to their relationship,

“Lo, she is one of this confederacy!

Now I perceive they have conjoined all three.

To fashion this false sport, in spite of me.—
Injurious Hermia! Most ungrateful maid!
Have you conspired, have you with these contrived
To bait me with this foul derision?
Is all the counsel that we two have shared,
The sisters’ vows, the hours that we have spent
When we have chid the hasty-footed time
For parting us—oh, is it all forgot?
All schooldays’ friendship, childhood innocence?
We, Hermia, like two artificial gods,
Have with our needles created both one flower,
Both on one sampler, sitting on one cushion,
Both warbling of one song, both in one key,
As if our hands, our sides, voices, and minds,
Had been incorporate. So we grew together,
Like to a double cherry—seeming parted
But yet an union in partition—
Two lovely berries molded on one stem;

So, with two seeming bodies but one heart,
Two of the first, like coats in heraldry,
Due but to one and crownèd with one crest.
And will you rent our ancient love asunder
To join with men in scorning your poor friend?
It is not friendly, ’tis not maidenly.
Our sex, as well as I, may chide you for it,
Though I alone do feel the injury.”

Helena believes that Hermia is in cahoots with Lysander and Demetrius to play some sort of cruel trick on her, so as to humiliate her. This is strange, as the impression has been given that they have been friends for a very long time. I think that it is safe to say that Lysander and Demetrius’s squabble can be chalked up to blind rage and a bout of too much honor, and perhaps, too much pride. The four Athenian lovers squabble is laughable, but works to push the play forward, as the their carelessness plays right into the fairies’ hands.

She says here, “No night is now with hymn or carol blessed.

Therefore the moon, the governess of floods,

Pale in her anger, washes all the air,

That rheumatic diseases do abound.

And thorough this distemperature we see

The seasons alter: hoary-headed frosts

Fall in the fresh lap of the crimson rose,

And on old Hiems’ thin and icy crown

An odorous chaplet of sweet summer buds

Is, as in mockery, set. The spring, the summer,

The childing autumn, angry winter change

Their wonted liveries, and the mazèd world,

By their increase, now knows not which is which.” 2.1.87-89

The most striking aspect of acts I and II of a Midsummer Night’s Dream are the female characters that are introduced to us at the beginning of the play. As discussed in class, this play is often viewed as one that supports a feminist perspective because of the non-conformist actions performed by women in the play. The play clearly challenges patriarchal beliefs through the fierce personas and traditionally insubordinate actions of the female characters, as we discussed in class. However, another way in which the play challenges the patriarchy is through heavily sponsoring female empowerment. The female characters in this play are able to stand so strong the face of men because they aren’t tearing one another down.

When Helena speaks to Hermia about Demetrius in act I, it felt natural to assume some cattiness would ensue. On the contrary, Helena asks Hermia, “teach me how you look, and with what art/ you sway the motion of Demetrius’ heart,” (line197) dismissing any notions of envy or tension. Similarly, Hermia describes Demetrius’s refusal to reciprocate love to Helena as “his folly,” (line 205) acknowledging her worthiness of love.

Furthermore, even when Helena devises a plan to sabotage Hermia’s meeting with Lysander, it isn’t done out jealous spite or cruel intention towards the woman Demetrius is interested in. Instead, she makes the plan hoping to “have his sight thither and back again,” (line 257) and simply gain his favor.

The existence of feminine empowerment is most notable during Titania’s explaination for refusing to give up the changeling child. When she must face Oberon and his request to take the child, Titania finds the strength to stand her ground through choosing to remain loyal to the late “votaress,”(line 491) alleged mother of the changeling.

Titania’s argument for keeping the child is laden with moving, emotional reasoning. She details the deep relationship she developed with the changeling’s mother, describing their voyages to other worlds where they spent their time laughing, gossiping, and growing close. As result of their strong bond, Tatiana “will not part with him” (line 506) and will “rear up her boy,” (line 505) regardless of Oberon’s desires.

Last, but definitely not least, there is the case of Hippolyta. Her previous status as Queen of the Amazon suggests her role as a lead feminist character. It can be assumed that, since she was once the ruler of a land where men are obsolete, she must have immense love for women. However, her current position as the bride-to-be of a man who claims he will wed her “with pomp, with triumph, and with revelling,” (line 20) causes me to question the validity of her feminist persona. Since Theseus had to win her hand through battle and causing “injuries,” (line 18) isn’t it fair to consider Hippolyta as a feminist fighter? Should Hippolyta still be considered as strong of a female character as Titania, Hermia or Helena, despite her current position? Or does her marriage truly signify her being conquered once and for all by her husband, and thus, the patriarchy?

I think the most glaringly problematic thing about A Midsummer Night’s Dream is the way consent is toyed with in its main plot line. The fact that the main characters, mainly Titania, Lysander, and Demetrius, have their ability to consent robbed of them as a comedic device is deeply troubling. While Titania and Lysander are restored to the way they were at the beginning of the play, no one bothers to lift the spell off of Demetrius. While this situation can be stretched to appear benign during the first few acts of the play, where Demetrius ends up should concern the audience. Demetrius and Helena move on from the play together as a couple which is an idea that was abhorrent to Demetrius at the beginning. What happens to Demetrius when the curtain closes is rape in the most unambiguous terms. In the same way that drugging someone to take away their ability to consent is assault, Demetrius has been assaulted. This should not be part of the cheery ending of an otherwise progressive story of women overcoming social norms and demanding autonomy in their own lives. While Helena can be celebrated for much of the play as a female character with agency and strong convictions, we can not be joyous when she obtains the person she is after considering the methods by which he was acquired. While it may seem righteous and logical for the play to reduce the boundless power held by male characters and share it with female ones, it goes too far in dismantling Demetrius’ potency.

Aside from that, I like to think of A Midsummer Night’s Dream as the play that got all the strong female characters Shakespeare forgot to put in The Tempest. The scarcity is so great in The Tempest that its defenders laud Sycorax as a feminist icon. Titania, Hermia, and Helena are all given so much to do and have such vivid motivations and intentions that they feel so much more dimensional and compelling than even a lot of contemporary female characters. The limits of the play’s feminism are clear though. All these characters still find it necessary to navigate a world that is ultimately dominated by men. Their victories are granted them by male counterparts. Oberon mercifully forgives Titania and breaks the spell on her. Oberon also orchestrates Helena’s obtaining of Demetrius. Hermia is free to marry Lysander when another man relinquishes his claim to her.

The gag where Lysander and Demetrius almost fall in love when they wake up is pretty weird. Like, two men falling in love? Good one. Anybody else?

One of my favorite elements of this play is its comedic subplot. Of the Shakespearean side-stories purposed for comic relief, A Midsummer Night’s Dream has my favorite. When I was in high school I played Flute in a Drew University summer production and that gave me an appreciation for just how dimensional these characters are compared to, say, Trinculo and Sebastian in The Tempest. Each of the players has a distinct set of mannerisms and traits that make them very compelling aside from their roles as a comedic side-show. I think that the play within the play is a great example of Shakespeare’s expert self-awareness. The fact that he would straightforwardly incorporate a Romeo and Juliet spoof indicates a commendable awareness of himself.

After our discussion in class, I continued to think about the way A Midsummer Night’s Dream challenges a patriarchal view of society. Obviously, the opening scene in which Egeus comes to Theseus is loaded with implications about the rights that men have in this society. The idea that a father has the right to determine the fate of his daughter is perhaps the most literal patriarchal right there can be, seeing as it is a father controlling his children. However, a different representation of a patriarchal relationship is present in this scene as well. I found that despite barely speaking in the scene, Demetrius’ role is extremely significant. The fact is that the only power Egeus holds is in Demetrius’ assertion that he must marry Hermia despite knowing fully well that she does not want to. It would be one thing if Demetrius’ father were also present, as his father and Egeus may have had some kind of mutually beneficial arrangement involving wedding their children. However, that is not the case. Instead, Demetrius is there blatantly attempting to marry someone who has no interest in him at all, and in fact, Hermia is interested in someone else who is standing right there in the same room. In Demetrius’ only line of the scene, he asserts “Lysander, yield Thy crazed title to my certain right”. If we ignore the idea of having love present in a relationship completely, this is still an interesting assertion because this ‘certain right’ he refers to is a right given to him by a father, Egeus.

Another scene involving Demetrius has an interesting dialogue on what the ‘appropriate’ way to go about a relationship is, and that is in the second act when he is talking to Helena in the woods. We know that it would be simpler for Demetrius to just be in love with Helena, but of course, that is not how love works. The real issue is in that Demetrius refuses to give Helena a chance, but is upset that Hermia won’t give him a chance. It’s truly hypocritical and the only excuse he has is that he is a man, and only men should chase women, not the other way around. Helena does a fantastic job of challenging this convention, particularly in her final line before Demetrius leaves the stage. She states sarcastically: “We cannot fight for love, as men may do; We should be wood and were not made to woo.” She is essentially challenging the thought that women are objects that are meant to be won. She feels like she should be allowed to try and win over Demetrius, and of course, she should have every right to. The only real question is, why does she even love this idiot in the first place?

The only assumption we can make is that Demetrius is not really in love with Hermia, so I’m interested to know what is his actual intentions are. As Helena says before the end of Act I, “Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind; And therefore is wing’d Cupid painted blind”. True love is not about looks, so if all Demetrius is interested in is looks, then he has yet to experience true love. However, I have a feeling he will be forced to pretty soon.