A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Rated “S & M” for Mature
My Bachelor’s Final Thesis
Shakespeare seldom paints a lovable picture when it comes to romance and his conception of love can seem slight and superficial during his career. Young lovers commit suicide in hopes of staying together eternally, relationships either end in triumph or dismally; instead of true love and sweetness, he creates characters that feature certain dark, base and overall sadomasochistic qualities. One critic notes “It has long been a critical commonplace that Shakespearean comedy works to restrain libidinal impulses by directing them into stable and productive ‘normal’ marital unions” (Sanchez 501). However, Shakespeare’s marital unions are far from normal; he takes these unsatisfying notions of love and forces them into the traditional aspect of marriage. Note that this is all done through an immaculate discipline and art form — if his plays seemed to truly step out of line on the surface, Shakespeare would be in trouble with the law of the time. So he masks these baser notions of love in comedic moments or through conversations between characters that only the utmost observant audience would truly understand. Most of the time, these characters display both a sadist and a masochistic role at different times throughout their play. In the comedy, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, estimated to be written between 1595 and 1596, many of the couples exhibit these characteristics, but this essay will focus on Hermia and Helena’s relationship in conjunction with Oberon and Titania’s.
This expedition through Shakespearean scholarship will unfold the mystery that is those forgotten lines and questions in such a funny play, according to the high school English classrooms that read it traditionally. I hope to encourage readers to relook at Shakespeare’s plays and dissect the dialogue between characters, become conscious of what each say in regards to the sexual tension at play here. Shakespeare was not encouraging people to take up a BDSM relationship with their neighbor or attend sex clubs in New York, mostly because those ideas did not even exist yet. Instead, showcases that there are other sides to love and the classic, idealistic notion of it, as cultivated by the infamous Petrarch. In A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare provides a warning for the audience and those potentially in love. He says that Petrarch’s love for Laura is wrong and our love should not be based upon that. Instead, everyone’s love is different — it might be sappy and requires posting poorly-written poems to the trees in a forest, or it can be darker and more desperate as shown in this play.
The two young female friends in the play, Hermia and Helena, were inseparable as they grew up together, which resulted in their confiding everything in the other. However, once both women reach adulthood, both girls find love in someone other than their best friend. Hermia finds love in a forbidden man, Lysander, which goes against her father’s wishes to marry Demetrius who is a more suitable man by her father’s standards. This does, however, pose well her childhood friend, seeing as Helena would like Demetrius for herself. Helena aches over Demetrius, believing that Hermia doesn’t deserve him. Hermia has Lysander to love and therefore has no need for Demetrius. Hermia and Lysander flee to the forest in an attempt to run away from Hermia’s Father, Egeus, who disagrees with her taste in men. Helena and Demetrius run after them, hoping to bring them back to Athens before the watchful eyes of the King Theseus and his soon to be queen, Hippolyta, notice their absence. The forest is not only a place full of secrets and mischief, but is also inhabited with cunning fairies. These fairies play tricks on the four lovers because they’re under the command of the king and queen of the fairies, Oberon and Titania respectively. Oberon and Titania may be the king and queen of the woods and fairyland, but they do not live in peace and cannot rule a kingdom together. Between ordering the fairies to place pansy juice in the eyes of Lysander and Demetrius to make them love the wrong girl; whom they love, this couple fight constantly because of their adulterous history and present. Meanwhile, the men have, thanks to the pansy juice, stopped fawning over Hermia and have turned their attention to Helena. Readers begin to feel exasperated as Shakespeare turns everything on its head, questioning who truly is in love with whom. Thankfully, by the end of the play everything is right; Hermia and Lysander are to be betrothed, along with Helena and Demetrius at Theseus and Hippolyta’s wedding. The pansy juice is rid from the eyes of those that matter and the play comes to a close with true love winning.
This is a very classical and traditional read of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and yet this read leaves many unanswered questions and confusing thoughts: does Demetrius truly love Helena or does the pansy juice remain in his eyes? What about the king and queen of fairyland and their love triangle with Bottom? How gains custody of the small Indian changeling boy? This is why there are many other ways to read Shakespeare’s plays. For the sake of this paper, I will be discussing this play through the lens of sadomasochism. The pairings in this play, mainly Helena and Hermia and Oberon and Titania, can be seen as exhibiting sadomasochistic tendencies. The traditional read as showcased previously leaves out the very interesting behaviors the characters display that is deemed unfit for a healthy relationship. Helena and Hermia, best friend since childhood, and the king and queen of the fairies exhibit sadomasochistic tendencies when it comes to their opposites. Both Helena and Hermia take turns being the dominator and the submissive when it comes to their relationship. Hermia, characterized by Helena herself as being petite, willingly creates vicious arguments with Helena so that Helena will in turn call her short. Oberon and Titania both mock and torment the other, constantly bringing up past indecencies in order to throw it in the other’s face. These relationships cannot possibly be happy ones; they leave the masochist feeling dejected and hurt, and the sadist feeling privileged and power-hungry — only to then be flipped again. This play surely cannot exhibit true love when the couples that seem to have the best love, are constantly hurting the other.
Both readings of this play are true. The traditional read sets the scene for the reader, allowing him to grasp the plotline and characters, but it still leaves much omitted. This sadomasochistic read, being an untraditional read, allows the audience to place the play in the seedier light, or as Lyons suggests “The [play] is a more shallow image of life than Shakespeare’s later romantic comedies,” that Shakespeare may have intended, however, this too leaves much to be imagined (Lyons 21). Simply put, why are the characters acting in these crazy terms towards each other? This essay aims to answer that question. Yes, Hermia and Helena, as well as Oberon and Titania, take turns being the sadist and the masochist as is evident in their dialogue and actions. But they are doing these awful deeds to their partner because it is healthy. Shakespeare uses this comedy to provide a warning for the newlyweds and those surrounding: love is a constantly developing emotion and will never settle on one aspect, and couples need to be aware of this change so they can accept the change instead of fighting it.
Sadomasochism as a Lens for Interpreting Literature
The term “sadomasochism” and even the words “sadism” and “masochism” would not have been used or even created during Shakespeare’s time, nor would they have been used to describe the character of his plays. Breaking down the compound of sadomasochism, the Oxford English Dictionary defines “Masochism” as: “The urge to derive pleasure, esp. sexual gratification, from one’s own pain or humiliation; the pursuit of such pleasure”; and “Sadism” as: “Enthusiasm for inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others” or “a psychological disorder characterized by sexual fantasies, urges, or behavior involving the subjection of another person to pain, humiliation, bondage, etc.” In layman’s terms, the sadist is the dominator whereas the masochist is the dominated or the submissive. The Mastery of Submission furthers this definition by stating “sexual masochism” is defined as producing sexual excitement by being bound, humiliated, beaten, or otherwise made to suffer (Noyes 16).
According to Lynn Chancer’s book, Sadomasochism in Everyday Life, sadomasochism is referred to as a “common social relationship based on power and powerlessness, dominance and subordination” between two people. To be termed as such, the relationship must meet four requirements laid out by Chancer these are: extreme dependence, having an established ritual, constantly changing sadomasochistic tendencies, and having consequences set in place for when the submissive, or the masochist, falls out of line. The first quality, extreme dependence, is where both individuals in the relationship, regardless of who is the sadist or the masochist, feels a strong need for physical, but most importantly, mental connection with the other. The second criteria is that the relationship has its own ritual and repetition to it, as in the individuals have structured contact. Thirdly, the sadomasochistic tendencies are not static, but instead dialectic and constantly changing (3). Finally, and most importantly, the masochist individual in the relationship must “face severe consequences” if they are to challenge the power of the sadist (5). Chancer acknowledges that she is giving an overview of sadomasochism as a term, and is not discussing the different dynamics that might stem from it such as S&M.
The definitions assume a negative connotation for the individuals who participate in such acts of indecency. Not for sexual gain, but many everyday relationships convey some of the same ideal hierarchy necessary to function such as student to teacher, or employee to employer and these relationships are seen as healthy and positive. Chancer argues in the beginning of her piece that “We are living in a sadomasochistic society in that it bombards us with experiences of domination and subordination far more regularly” than one can imagine (2). What these definitions are missing is the idea of balance. By engaging in the hierarchy of sadomasochism, those individuals are accepting the balance of opposites, dominance and subordination in order to function.
Using the above descriptions of sadomasochism, one can use this a methodology understanding different plots in literature and certainly Early Modern literature. Much of what the writers were concerned with was making sure their writing did not get them in trouble with the monarch; which is how Shakespeare adapted to having many layers in his plays for his audience to unfold. As Sanchez regards, “The imaginative worlds of literature give us access to some of the early modern cultural fantasies that cannot be documented by the period’s moral, legal, or medical discourses” (494). Sadomasochism, or at least the act of it, was not available for discussion, and yet A Midsummer Night’s Dream showcases its attributes before the word even derived. Furthermore, scholar Jason Gleckman argues: “A Midsummer Night’s Dream offers a concise imaginary history of the erotic, one in which an absolute patriarchy” (Gleckman 25). The erotic played a large role in the Early Modern literature even though it was a taboo subject. Writing was the only place where people could engage in erotic knowledge and discussion since it became a confusing notion in regards to marriage. “On the one hand, as part of their vehement promotion of married life, Protestants allowed increased space for the erotic impulse within marriage” (Gleckman 27). Sex was clearly not allowed outside of marriage, and even more not allowed between two of the same sex, but even after marriage, sex was never examined in the Catholic faith. However, the Protestants viewed sex as a beautiful gift from God and is supposed to be fun, but used only once married. Shakespeare channels this in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, but by pushing it towards the usual direction of the monogamous marriage that awaits many of the characters in the play (Gleckman 32).
Shakespeare toys with the notion of flipping gender roles even farther by suggesting in his work, particularly A Midsummer Night’s Dream, that “the men…are more childish, impressionable and less psychologically and emotionally developed, whilst the women are more rational, constant, and civilized and wield reason more effectively than men” (Schumann 43). This superimposes “the idea of a linked domination of women and nature by men” in relation to classic marriage (43). Traditionally, women are supposed to submit, whereas men are supposed to dominate the marriages; sex and the erotic are used only for procreation and even then it is not for pleasure, but simply necessary for marriage. However, “Shakespeare undermines, rather than reinforces the patriarchal social structures” (43) in the marriages and coupling that take place in this play, the women in most cases are the dominating party, not the men.
Most importantly is understanding that this is not a new, modern concept that is being put onto Shakespearean works. Instead, renowned Shakespearean scholar, Doctor Carolyn Brown, inspects the chronological use of psychoanalytic and other theories in regard to Shakespeare’s work. One of her discoveries is that of the audience’s “‘pleasure in projected suffering such as that portrayed in violent Renaissance literature” (Brown 104). Suffering and violence were popular and desired to be seen on stage, much the same as today’s society of violent video games, movies, tv shows, and more. There is something inherently intriguing about watching forms of suffering and superimposing those ideas into our own thinking. When watching a sadomasochistic play, the audience can see thrives on the animalistic tendencies that come with watching bad behavior, but also allows for a space to reevaluate their own relationships.
Hermia and Helena’s Sadomasochist Relationship
“Successful rivalry extinguishes desire, whereas failure exasperates it” (Brown 89). In the case of relationships, having an idealized bond can be boring, and tends to imply that someone is not being truly honest; relationships are in a constant state of ebb and flow, they are forever changing dynamics as each day progresses and it requires time and courage to keep a cohesive and mutually exclusive balance between two people. When it comes to the two young female lovers in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Hermia and Helena exasperate each other’s desires to the fullest extent by partaking in their unconscious sadomasochistic tendencies. Hermia plays a sadistic role more often than the masochistic role in their relationship. Her role is to torment Helena, ultimately enticing her more. For example, when she is explaining to Helena that she is fleeing with Lysander:
And in the wood, where often you and I
Upon faint primrose beds were wont to lie,
Emptying our bosoms of their counsel sweet,
There my Lysander and myself shall meet,
And thence from Athens turn away our eyes,
To seek new friends and stranger companies.
Farewell, sweet playfellow. (1.1.214–220)
She points out to Helena, deliberately, that her and Lysander are meeting where she and Helena often met as children, as playmates, and spent hours together. This place in the woods is undoubtedly special to Helena, and Hermia flaunts the fact that she is taking someone else to their sacred hideout. Even referring to Lysander as “hers” Hermia boasts that Helena has been replaced, which is made even clearer when she says that she will seek new friends and different companies. Sealing the speech with “playfellow” is an added insult to Helena’s already ruined self-esteem. Scholar Melissa Sanchez’s article, “‘Use Me But As Your Spaniel’: Feminism, Queer Theory, And Early Modern Sexualities” focuses on the erotic and power dynamic in Hermia and Helena’s relationship. Sanchez suggests that “[When Helena] accuses Hermia of betraying a closeness that made them ‘Like to a double cherry, seeming parted / But yet an union in partition,’ (3.2.209–10) critics have almost invariable contrasted the serene equality and gentle reciprocity of female bonds with the violence and domination of heterotic unions” (402). By moving forward and breaking their bond, Hermia activated the dominator and submissive qualities in their relationship. Helena’s lifelong best friend is abandoning her for a man, running away to their special place that once was emotionally charged for both of them, and furthermore, doesn’t really care about their adult relationship at all. And best of all, Hermia understands exactly what she is doing to Helena. She consciously acts this way to hurt Helena; knowing that Helena is going to become upset and come after her, so perhaps Hermia wants Helena to chase after her — this is how their relationship is.
Helena does follow after her friend — she masks her journey after Hermia by telling Demetrius, another of Hermia’s suitors, to confirm Hermia and Lysander will not depart from Athens. By concealing her true reasons for going into the forest, Helena makes it seem as if Demetrius is hounding after Hermia instead of herself, in order to keep her true feelings at bay. Helena chasing after Hermia would look curious and scandalous to the people of Athens, but her desperately following Demetrius, because he has more reason to follow the girl he is supposed to wed, somehow looks more acceptable. Helena needs an excuse for getting into the woods. Perhaps she believes Demetrius will successfully stop Hermia from leaving with Lysander, instead to stay in Athens with her. Following after Hermia will hurt Helena because she cannot express her love for Hermia herself, and yet this pain is what she desires: “herein mean I to enrich my pain” (1.1.250). Helena is the masochist in their relationship and extremely hurtful to herself:
And even for that do I love you the more.
I am your spaniel; and, Demetrius,
The more you beat me, I will fawn 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 used as you use your dog? (2.1.202–210)
Here, Helena followed Demetrius into the magical woods after informing him of Hermia and Lysander’s plan to escape. Demetrius is not excited about his company into the woods, he does not want her following him anymore, but she explains to him that the more he tries to dispose of her, the more she is going to fawn over him. This is an excellent example of the shocking masochistic qualities Helena displays. The more Demetrius hates her, the more she wants his love. She believes that being used as his dog would be getting his respect.
However, perhaps Helena is referring to hers and Hermia’s relationship instead of Demetrius’ hatred towards her. When she pauses over “I am your spaniel” and then inputs Demetrius’ name, the reader assumes that she momentarily forgets the façade of true love for Demetrius. Sanchez argues that Helena’s conversations with both Demetrius and Hermia can be seen as similar, but most importantly “[Helena fantasizes] herself as helpless subordinate to both Hermia and Demetrius register[ing] the same perverse, masochistic drives” (Sanchez 504). Moreover, “Helena’s exchanges with Demetrius and Hermia reveal that women’s unapologetically perverse desires — whether for women or for men — can threaten ideals of proper, ‘normal’ sexuality” (Sanchez 506). However, this does not occur to Helena, she simply is a product of the relationship she has with Hermia, which is by definition an aggressive one as shown by their language towards each other, and yet they both unconsciously desire this aggression. Helena wants to be used as a dog by Hermia, not by Demetrius, nor by anyone else, and Hermia only lets Helena belittle her.
The girls do switch roles though: Helena becomes the sadist as Hermia invites her to torment her, in turn becoming the masochist herself. When Lysander has the pansy juice put in his eyes, he falls in love with Helena and out of love with Hermia, causing the two to fight. Hermia, however, seems to forget about being upset with Lysander, and simply yells at Helena for the sake of it. Instead of arguing about the relationship problem at hand, they get into a fight about each other’s heights: Helena calls Hermia “low” and Hermia calls Helena a “maypole,” something that seems so trivial and yet extremely passionate as it takes place (3.2.296). Their argument is passionate, their insults harsh, that Hermia even goes as far as to desire to distribute physical pain: “I am not yet so low / But that my nails can reach unto thine eyes” (3.2.297–98). Their teasing here transforms into physical violence towards each other, something closer and therefore more intimate. Hermia, though physically smaller, has the worse temper of the two, as displayed here. “Read in the light of the intersection of the traditions of classical friendship and Petrarchan love, the full range of Helena and Hermia’s interactions in A Midsummer Night’s Dream becomes coherent. Helena’s childhood memories of oneness with Hermia are not so much displaced as complicated by her repeated accounts of her friend’s violent temper” (Sanchez 503). As previously mentioned, Helena is upset that her dear friend replaced her and seemingly tossed their shared memories away.
Both girls know how to annoy the other, which “evokes a fantasy a perfect harmony” (Sanchez 503) since the two of them take turns being the sadist and the masochist in the relationship. Furthermore, the two would be friends forever, at least that is what Helena observed at their young age, but lives change and as the two matured, their sadomasochistic tendencies flourished and according to Sanchez, “It is hard to see how Helena or Hermia could ever have become interested in anyone but the other — or why any woman would willingly abandon such “sisters’ vows” and “childhood innocence” (503). If Hermia had never broken their sisterly vows, as Sanchez calls them, to provoke Helena, then Helena would not have experienced the same urge to demand justice from Hermia, or follow her into the woods and the play would not be the same. Thus, as the book Shakespeare’s Philosophy of Love written by scholar Herman Horne suggests, Helena berates love for its power to transform baseness into dignity; Helena tries to stay dignified by berating love in the only way she knows how (46). Many proverbs Shakespeare himself came up with such as “love is blind” and “all’s fair in love and war” are questionable for their dignity, and yet Helena’s jaundiced views are rationalized by the loss of her lover to another.
Titania and Oberon’s Rated “M” for Mature Marriage
The constant teasing between innocent Hermia and Helena foreshadows the only already-married couple in the play. Helena and Hermia do, however, fit into this equation as well. Though neither of them are male, they both do eroticize their own submission/domination. Traditionally, as Rieger points out, “Men dominate women in the comedy, and women not only accept this domination, they eroticize it” (78). Rieger’s claim can be clearly seen in the case of the king and queen of the fairies, Oberon and Titania, who are the ultimate happy couple. These two enjoy manipulating each other over small and large things and ultimately disagreeing on everything. The two are arguing about the strange, magical weather that is occurring because of their own magical powers: “Therefore the winds, piping us in vain, / As in revenge, have sucked up from the sea / Contagious fogs; which, falling in the land, / Hath every pelting river made so proud” (Shakespeare 2.1.88–91). Titania describes the dismal scene of raging storms over the mortal Athens, she fears for the humans with their “drowned field” and their land filled with mud (2.1.96 & 98). Whereas Oberon does not care at all about the mortals, instead he seemingly brushes off Titania’s fears and changes the subject. Shakespearean scholar Angela Schumann argues that here Titania is a nobler character than that of Oberon, which in some cases I would consider to be true as well. However, in the first scene with the married couple, the audience can already see that they do not agree upon everything. Perhaps Titania knows that Oberon will dismiss her fears, and so she produces that long monologue to make herself seem nobler and better as to enrage Oberon.
This notion is further explored throughout the play, when the audience sees the king and queen arguing over the possession of the changeling Indian boy. Schumann’s piece “‘But As A Form In Wax’: An Ecofeminist Reading Of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” suggests:
Titania is a more complex and mature character than Oberon. She wants the Indian boy out of love for his mother, “for her sake do I rear up the boy” (2.1.136). Conversely, “jealous oberon” (2.1.24) who…suffers from a case of wounded male pride, only wants the boy as an exotic trinket…and out of jealousy for taking Titania’s attention away from him: “am I not thy lord?” (2.1.63). (Schumann 48)
Titania has taken this Indian boy to raise as her own because of what she claims as a duty to the boy’s mother: “But she, being mortal, of that boy did die; / And for her sake do I rear up her boy, / And for her sake I will not part with him” (Shakespeare 2.1.135–37). This is a touching story and quite noble of Titania to take her late friend’s child and make sure he has a safe and happy home, but considering Titania and Oberon’s constant bickering, the reader is unsure if she says this to make herself seem noble or to hurt Oberon, something Schumann’s piece fails to mention. I believe that Titania is no nobler than Oberon. Much like with Helena and Hermia, she knows how to irritate Oberon and seeks to antagonize him.
Titania speaks of the countless nights she and the Indian boy’s mother spent together, a time when she was clearly away from Oberon and more importantly, building a stronger relationship with someone else as seen by: “Full often hath she gossip’d by my side” (2.1.125). This sounds very familiar with Hermia’s speech to Helena about making a deeper connection to someone else. The audience isn’t really sure why Oberon wants the Indian boy other than to use him for his own good, so it is safe to assume that Oberon simply wants the Indian boy because Titania has him, and Titania flaunts her relationship with him in Oberon’s face. This isn’t the first game the two have played against each other. In one of the first scenes with the king and the queen of the fairies, the audience is introduced to the adulterous relationship the two have:
Titania: But that, forsooth, the bouncing Amazon,
Your buskined mistress and your warrior love,
To Theseus must be wedded, and you come
To give their bed joy and porperity.Oberon: How canst thou thus for shame, Titania,
Glance at my credit with Hippolyta,
Knowing I know they love to Theseus?” (2.1.70–76)
Both parties involved have had romantic and sexual affairs with the mortal king and queen of Athens, Theseus and Hippolyta. Usually, when there is a cheating partner, they love berating each other, as seen above; they want to have these bickering fights where they throw affairs and games on each other’s face. This is how their relationship functions, showcasing that this version of love, though seedier, actually puts the two in harmony, like Hermia and Helena, and provides a perfect relationship for them.
Titania is not the only masochist in her relationship; much like Helena and Hermia — her and Oberon switch between being the sadist and the masochist. Oberon definitely turns around and desires to be the masochist at times as well. Not just when the stereotypical sadist and dominate the pansy flower juice comes into the play, Oberon’s faithful servant Puck is told to fix the Athenian lovers quarrel to Demetrius and Helena, broken and one-sided relationship. He messes up, however, as the audience sees and instead puts the juice in Lysander’s eyes causing him to fall in love with Helena. Oberon, while fixes the dilemma his servant created becomes more devious. He decides to put the flower’s juice in his wife’s eyes to: “make her full of hateful fantasies” (2.2.257–258). He humiliates his wife by making her see, and ultimately fall in love with, something hideous.
Not only does he want to humiliate her, but more importantly, he wants to humiliate himself by setting up his own cuckolding. Gabriel Rieger’s article regarding the erotic economies in this play discusses immensely the idea of Oberon cuckolding himself. He points out the scholarly work that dismisses the notion of realized cuckolding and instead he suggests that Oberon uses “erotic desire as a weapon to humiliate his rebellious wife and enforce her submission. He does this in order to reassert his position at the head of his family and, by extension, the state as embodied in the fairy kingdom” (70). In order to restore order, Oberon openly sets up his wife to have sexual relations with another man in order to humiliate the two of them, and in doing so, Oberon regains control and the upper hand in his and Titania’s power dynamics. The audience watches Oberon’s plan unfold:
What thou seest when thou dost wake,
Do it for thy true love take;
Love and languish for his sake.
Be it ounce, or cat, or bear,
Pard, or boar with bristled hair,
In thy eye that shall appear
When thou wak’st, it is thy dear.
Wake when some vile thing is near. (2.2.27–34)
Titania could wake up and see Theseus or one of the lovers or even her king, but Oberon wants her to be even more humiliated than that; he wants to see his wife fall in love with a wild animal, crossing the line into bestiality. Moreover, Lisa Walters’ article, “Oberon And Masculinity In Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream” suggests that “Titania’s refusal to obey Oberon is the action of a rebellious and unruly wife against her husband’s authority. Hence, in his drugging of Titania, Oberon parallels Theseus…restoration of order comes about by causing ‘injuries’ to female queens” (Walters 157). Walters agrees with this notion by saying: “Oberon is treasonous; he induces political and sexual chaos as he drugs the queen causing her desire for a lower-ranking man with an ass’s head” (158). However, what Walters does not mention is why Oberon does what he does. By craving the humiliation and setting the cuckolding his with Puck and Bottom, Oberon wants to embarrass himself. This is his wife gallivanting with a half-man half-donkey, doting and possibly engaging in sexual moments with this creature. If other people were to see Titania’s actions, they would turn to Oberon and question why he is not controlling his wife. Even worse, they could turn to him in pity because ultimately Oberon sets up his own cuckolding. He watches his wife take Bottom into her “bower,” basically her private bed chamber (3.1.197) for potential sexual relations. This is what Oberon wants; he could stop the madness from happening, stop his wife from committing such a gross and adulterous crime against him, but he does not.
Shakespeare takes Oberon’s humiliation and masochistic drive further by representing Oberon and Titania’s relationship as the only happy marriage. “The erotic economies of A Midsummer Night’s Dream are predicated upon gendered dominance and submission, upon…love won by the doing of injuries” (Rieger 71). Oberon’s use of erotic desire is a form of control, True love comes from harm and the idealistic relationships, the ones that are supposed to be based on true love, are actually false, either from the pansy juice or other selfish reasons. Helena and Demetrius’ relationship is fake because Demetrius still has the juice in his eyes at the end of the play when they are married. Theseus and Hippolyta’s relationship is forced because Hippolyta was raped by Theseus resulting in her having to marry him. There are no “ideal” relationships in this play, instead the characters show realistic emotions of being in love: the angry, passionate, scheming and violent kind of love. Oberon and Titania, on the other hand, are actually compatible. They are both scheming and violent, they both play games and tease the other; everything is in sync and equal. This is how Shakespeare shows a happy relationship and has this be the only couple that has been married and together for as long as they have. The two are immortal, therefore have a long time to spend together, and if they didn’t actually enjoy the treatment they get from their partner, then they could have ended things long ago. But instead, the king and queen stay together and continue their harsh, teasing relationship.
Shakespeare’s Insight into Holy Matrimony
There is a commonplace assumption about the origins regarding this play in the study and scholarly work of Shakespeare. Charles Lyon’s work, Shakespeare and the Ambiguity of Love’s Triumph discusses this origin as having been “written for a court wedding” (22). Horne’s piece provides further proof of the epithalamium by mentioning those assumed to be in attendance, such as: “Sir Thomas Heneage and Mary, Countess of Southampton; Edward Russell, Earl of Bedford, and Lucy Harrington” as well as “It is possible…that Queen Elizabeth would herself grace the occasion by her presence” (Horne 42–43). Shakespeare would have known if the queen was going to be in attendance, probably because someone would have made sure his play would be proper enough. This does not prevent Shakespeare, however, from creating a play that on the surface appears pure enough for the queen and full of love for a wedding and yet still exhibits sexual baseness, gritty relationships, and mocking towards love at first sight.
So what is it that Shakespeare is trying to accomplish by submitting the wedding party and potentially the queen to a technically sadomasochistic play? All of Shakespeare’s work possesses an underlying message to the audiences who watch it. In the case of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare provides a warning about true love and most importantly, how love changes in marriage. Firstly, as Maurice Charney’s book, Shakespeare on Love & Lust, points out, this play mocks the notion of “love at first sight,” which is also a Petrarchan ideal (9). Love is supposed to enter through the eyes and it is essentially spontaneous, irresistible, and absolute (9). But Shakespeare ridicules this idea by having his characters control who they see and, by proxy, fall in love with at first sight, with the use of pansy juice. As previously mentioned, Oberon controls who Titania’s newest love interest is simply by putting the juice from a certain flower in her eyes and then whomever she sees first, she falls madly and deeply in love with them. Shakespeare muddles with the way we perceive love at first sight. It is not as romantic as it might seem, but instead can be tortuous, unwanted, and in Titania’s case, demeaning.
The second warning this play presents is the notion of “happily ever after.” The bride and groom of the wedding, and the guests attending, all have a preconceived notion of how love works in a relationship. To them, Petrarch ultimately defined love in this age as being an idealistic and god-like experience, almost something intangible. Soon-to-be-brides were pure and innocent, emulating goddesses, and their love was going to allow their groom to transcend this earthly realm and bring him closer to God. This puts immense pressure on the bride for she must live up to that unnatural standard and form of love which does not allow for any sadomasochism or baseness to come into existence. This pressure makes each bride equal to the next, which we know women are not all equal; Shakespeare believes that “Inequality is the natural order of ‘true love’” (Rieger 73). Shakespeare disagrees with Petrarch’s notion of love; he sees love as an ever-changing, amorphous ideal that alters as it grows and matures. Regier even suggests that for love and a couple “to exist in harmony, one party must be dominated and one party must submit” (Rieger 74). So not only does love change throughout a relationship, but the only way it will continue to exist is not through this idealized version love, but rather perfect harmony that includes these unspeakable.
The book Shakespeare’s Treatment of Love and Marriage, by C. H. Herford, spells out the Shakespearean norm of love:
Love is a passion, kindling heart, brain and senses alike in natural and happy proportions; ardent but not sensual, tender but not sentimental, pure but not ascetic, moral but not puritanic, joyous but not frivolous, mirthful and witty but not cynical. His lovers look forward to marriage as a matter of course, and they neither anticipate its rights nor turn their affections elsewhere. (18)
Described here are the common binaries that situate themselves inside the notion of love and Shakespeare took these and made sure that his lovers and couples remained in the balance. All of his created relationships, those romantic and not, can be described as such and if they seem to be too pure or tipping the scale one way, this is used in a mocking manner to showcase how this is not the ideal. Instead, the balance is necessary here; idealness is irrational and unattainable.
Today’s Notion of Modern Romance
What has sadomasochism defined by Shakespeare taught his audiences? Rieger points out that “This masochistic acceptance and even embracing of humiliation can leave contemporary audiences, and critics, unsatisfied” (78). And to some extent, this is true. There is still uncertainty in accepting that lovers, especially women, can actually enjoy and crave this sexual humiliation. Rieger touches on this as well: “There is a real difficulty in accepting the female characters’ masochism, their cheerfulness embracing of degradation. It flies in the face of all contemporary, twentieth, and twenty-first-century notions of equality and appropriate gender relations” (79). Love has come incredibly far since Shakespeare’s Early Modern era. The term “BDSM” and the ever-increasing pornography industry would have been unheard of concepts to Shakespeare and his audiences, but the notions behind them would have been understood. To many of us, we look down at anything later than the Romantic period as being unrealistic towards the modern notion of love; people in this period “courted” and “wrote love letters” and “dated” without the use of an app. However, as this essay has pointed out, those in the Renaissance and Early Modern times were not too far off when it came to sexual transgression and more “modern” ways of looking at love.
The cornerstone of all modern forms of love now is inclusion: from the acceptance of interracial couples in the later twentieth century to legal marriage rights for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, being passed in the United States government in 2015. The smaller-scale events matter as well, such as gay pride parades, Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco where BDSM and leather clothing is somewhat mandatory, to online communities for people with different tastes personally and sexually. Of course we cannot forget the pornography industry which has over 22,820,000 searches a month according to a Business Outsider article from 2011, and categories for all forms of fetishes and desires ranging from innocent such as the classic foot fetish to more hardcore notions of sex. All of this leads to an unspoken inclusion noting that sex can be for any and everyone; if there is something weird or out of the status quo that you might like in the bedroom, well you can find it on the Internet. The point is that in today’s technologically advanced era, porn and therefore sex is becoming more widely accepted and understood as a medium for simple pleasure. There are porn communities, sex clubs, forums, erotic literature and more all saying the same thing: Sex is for everyone. And there is something powerful in owning one’s sexuality, even if it seems to stray from the social norm and I like to think that in the twenty-first century, society is more embracing of that. There are focus groups and clubs dedicated to those with different sexual preferences, the notions of domination and submission are showcased in movies and pop culture such as Fifty Shades of Grey being an international bestseller. We, as a world, are becoming more aware of different “tastes” in the bedroom and therefore less and less afraid of them. “Shakespeare so clings to the idea that it appears in almost all of his plays. He objects to criticism that ‘overemphasize[s] the unresolved and the problematic’ in the problem comedies and suggests that although those plays do not support idealization, their final message is positive” (Brown 52). And one can see that now that there is sexual liberation among couples, there is more happiness by far, which is exactly what Shakespeare was hinting at.
Shakespeare stresses that these couples are not unhappy, “The course of true love never did run smooth” which is the most important factor (Shakespeare 1.1.134). Oberon and Titania are equals in their relationship, as contrasted with Theseus and Hippolyta where Theseus holds all the power. Helena and Hermia, on the other hand, are a great example of the honeymoon phase in a relationship, where they are passionate and angry in one scene, and then loving and forgiving in the next. These two couples are just the start of the relationship dynamics in this play, but they are the prime examples. Ultimately, the two relationships can only function with their own dysfunctionalities; without the arguments and the fighting, their relationship would not be the same — there wouldn’t be any passion and it would cease to exist. Each and every individual relationship has their own equation for how it works, whether it be with some light bondage or through a more traditional sense. Either way, we cannot judge those whose love is not like our own — to them it is the ideal.
If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber’d here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend:
If you pardon, we will mend:
And, as I am an honest Puck,
If we have unearned luck
Now to ‘scape the serpent’s tongue,
We will make amends ere long;
Else the Puck a liar call;
So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends.
Works Cited
Brown, Carolyn. Shakespeare and Psychoanalytic Theory. New York: Bloomsbury, 2015. Print.
Chancer, Lynn S. Sadomasochism in Everyday Life: The Dynamics of Power and Powerlessness. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 1992. Print.
Charney, Maurice. Shakespeare on Love & Lust. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Print.
Dunn, Alec. “Top Google Searches — What Do People Search For?” Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 21 Dec. 2011. Web. 22 Apr. 2016.
Gleckman, Jason. “‘I Know A Bank.’: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Fairies, And The Erotic History Of England.” Shakespeare 10.1 (2014): 23–45. Scopus. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
Herford, C. H. Shakespeare’s Treatment of Love and Marriage: And Other Essays. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1921. Print.
Horne, Herman Harrell. Shakespeare’s Philosophy of Love. Raleigh, NC: Edwards & Broughton, 1945. Print.
Lyons, Charles R. Shakespeare and the Ambiguity of Love’s Triumph. The Netherlands: Mouton, 1971. Print.
Noyes, John K. The Mastery of Submission: Inventions of Masochism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997. Print.
Rieger, Gabriel. “‘I Woo’d Thee With My Sword, / And Won Thy Love Doing Thee Injuries’: The Erotic Economies Of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” The Upstart Crow (2009): 70. Literature Resource Center. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
PMLA 127.3 (2012): 493–511. Scopus. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
Schumann, Angela. “‘But As A Form In Wax’: An Ecofeminist Reading Of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Colloquy: Text Theory Critique 30 (2015): 42–60. Humanities Source. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Ed. Wolfgang Clemen. 2nd ed. New York: Signet Classics, 1986. Print.
Walters, Lisa. “Oberon And Masculinity In Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” ANQ: A Quarterly Journal Of Short Articles, Notes, And Reviews 26.3 (2013): 157–160. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 13 Feb. 2016.
