Midsummer’s
Eve, Summer Solstice
The Summer solstice was
traditionally celebrated by the Celts, as well as the Germanic
tribes of mainland Europe on June 21. Bonfires and special
celebrations marked what Druids considered the wedding of
Heaven and Earth. Widespread customs and rituals invoked the
love and fertility magic typically attributed to nature and
wood spirits. Like All Hallows (Halloween), Midsummer was
considered a day when the boundaries between the worlds are
thinnest, mortals have strange experiences, and when Otherworlders
and Faerie travellers crossover to visit our plane, intermingle
and sport with humans.
It has been generally assumed that A
Midsummer Night’s Dream was written
by Shakespeare sometime around 1595, in honor of the wedding
of an aristocratic couple. There are also strong hints in
the text which indicate that Elizabeth I was likely in attendance
for the initial presentation of the play (“... a
fair Vestal, throned by the West”).
Pulling together Britannic
folklore with aspects of Greek mythology, Shakespeare fashioned
a light comedic romance comprised of elements which were to
become his basic comedic formula: confusion, mischief and
the exasperation that ensues between pairs of couples, consummating
in multiplicities of marriages. The play also suggests many
structural similarities with masque, which was then
a popular form of whimsical entertainment for special occasions.
The play begins amid the
pragmatic bustle of wedding preparations for Duke Theseus
and his captive Amazon war bride, Hippolyta. The second Act
introduces the King and Queen of the Faeries, Oberon and Titania,
setting the stage for a contrast (and inevitable collision)
of rational with fanciful, earthy with airy. Somewhere between
these poles are found the pairs of lovers, Hermia and Lysander,
Helena and Demetrius, and the group of artisan actors, headed
by Peter Quince and Nick Bottom. These two “middle groups”
are destined to encounter the inversion of realms, as both
fatefully hurtle headlong into the woods. The forest then
becomes the magical portal wherein possession becomes law.
Here, the solid reassurances of the waking world are suspended,
while the Dream replaces reality with illusion. Skillfully,
Shakespeare plies Bottom’s trade and weaves together
the four subplots, artfully overlapping and intersecting them
at precise junctures.
“Lovers
and madmen have such seething brains
Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend
More than cool reason ever comprehends...”
Act V. i. 5-7
Undoubtedly, the overarcing
theme of the play is romantic love, in its varied forms, permutations,
consternations, confused expression, madness, and ultimate
fulfillments. This conclusion may be readily observed in plot
elements ranging from the squabbles and spitefulnesses between
Oberon and Titania, Helena’s laments, the fickle love
declarations between the four young lovers (irregardless of
the influence of Oberon’s love philtre), the preceding
adversarial relationship of Hippolyta and Theseus, even in
the unintentional farce created by Quince’s company
in their interpretation of the tragic relationship of Pyramus
and Thisbe. Setting aside the obvious comedic effect of a
romantic tragedy as the mechanicals’ choice of offering
for a wedding, the inclusion of the story by Shakespeare himself
appears to purposefully mirror the theme he will explore starkly
in Romeo and Juliet. We, as audience, are reminded that while
the madness of love may be fertile ground for amusement, it
may also spur tragic events and irrevocable choices to a fatal
conclusion. The comedic reminder mutes the impact, but nevertheless
presents the circumstances for consideration. Bottom’s
admonitions early in Act I to disclaim the “frightening”
elements of lion, suicide and tragedy to spare the audience
affright are bookended by Puck’s matching disclaimer
at the very end of Act V:
“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...”
Act V. i. 418-23
These delicate “advisements”
seem to assert that the play is merely a harmless exercise
in imagination. Theseus’ comments in Act V, I, (“The
best in these kind are but shadows...”) also reflect
this literalist view which takes art at face value, as mere
entertainment, and does not extend unto it a deeper Universal
meaning. Especially for those who are well-versed in Shakespeare’s
grimmer offerings, there is certainly room for doubt. Additionally,
Puck (or Robin Goodfellow) may also be more familiarly known
as a Trickster, the archetype which blurs lines between “light”
and “shadow” with a winking smile. Girded by this
fact, it seems more likely a subtle reminder of the importance
of imagination as tempered by judgement and an allusion to
its elusive but often powerful effects.
Unlike Shakespeare’s
later, more developed comedies, most characters in the Dream
are largely devoid of troubling complexities and do not encounter
protracted travails or consequences. Indeed, the play spans
but a single midnight of mishap through morning before all
complications are resolved by happy reunions. In fact, a common
thread running through Shakespeare works is the distinction
of a character’s personality among others to indicate
maturity. Stock characters and interchangeability are used
to effect the idea of a lack of worldly wisdom and need for
development. Additionally, the concept of traversing woods/forest
has served as a frequent allegory for gaining insight and
experience into the ways of the world. A significant number
of “fairy tales” may be found with this motif
presenting as the complication at the beginning of the protagonist’s
journey. Generally, the journey offers opportunities for advancement,
betterment of station, and resolution of difficulties. The
bliss of naiveté may be comfortable and safe, but it
is impossible to maintain and yet grow. Therefore, out of
the nest goes the naif in his (sometimes reluctant) pursuit
of a distinct identity. To come through the confusion intact
after wandering the woods is the ultimate goal. The four lovers’
experiences reflect this device, as does the depth of their
confusion. Romance is fine for a time, but marriage is generally
considered the “realized” ideal for male-female
courtships in Shakespearean ouevre. Pairings are meant to
emphasize the complementary nature of male and female –
a good match is one where the personalities are both well-defined
and self-directed, yet interdependent.
Bottom
and Puck are largely considered to be the most fleshed out
personalities among the dramatis personae, affording more
opportunity for a player to inhabit. Both possess more detail
and definition owing to their worldly experience and grasp
of universal human foible. As a varietal of typical Shakespearean
clown, Bottom plays a unique role in directing the audience’s
attention to a primary theme (reality vs. imagination). For
all his swagger and overweening confidence, he remains the
only mortal to directly interact with the Faerie realm, managing
such with characteristic aplomb and equanimity. One is left
to wonder, though, if Bottom would retain his agreeable nature
were he not able to dismiss his encounter as a “bottomless
Dream”. The mortal characters share this permission
to rationalize, and it is fitting to footnote that only the
fairy folk are indeed able to grasp the “reality”
of the play’s events.
So it is that Shakespeare
reminds us yet again that art imitates life, in that we mere
mortals are never truly able to see our own reality clearly.
We are all dreamers in this same sense...
