Love, Lust and Companionate Marriage

After learning about marriage during the time of Shakespeare I was interested to see how this was reflected in his work. I've always enjoyed that A Midsummer Night's Dream ended happily in marriage, but was taken aback this time around by the sorrow I felt for Helena. There is something disturbing and ironic about Helena and Demetrius' marriage and I think that Shakespeare had more to say about marriage in A Midsummer Night's Dream than any other of his plays. Shakespeare uses three examples in this play to show the driving forces of marriage during his time: love, lust, and companionate arrangement. 

Hermia & Lysander

Hermia & Lysander are examples of marrying for love. I think Shakespeare was quite the romantic and the new wave of marrying for love during his time was something he embraced. The relationship between these two characters is Shakespeare's ideal--defying the conventions of the times (fully aware of being punished with death by braking an arranged marriage), running off to be together (followed by the probable consequence of poverty), and motivated by love and the desire to be life-long companions. While no ones relationship is perfect (Lysander lusts after Helena at one point) together they stand the test of temptation and rejection. With Hermia and Lysander you feel a sense of commitment, romance, and excitement. Their relationship seems more sensible, real and complex--more human. 

Unrequited love

With Helena & Demetrius Shakespeare shows us that marrying for love can be dangerous, as love is often mistaken for lust. We can relate with this in our own day as choosing a spouse based heavily on love is more than prevalent. Shakespeare illustrates that love should not be the only factor in marriage, especially when love is so easily confused with the "spell" of infatuation.   You can't help but feel sorry for poor Helena the entire play, especially when she does end up marrying Demetrius!  How long will the spell on Demetrius last? How many marriages begin like that and after the infatuation has ended they find themselves stuck in the bonds of matrimony? Shakespeare must have faced the same problems in his world that we face today.

Theseus & Hippolyta are examples of the arranged marriage, but both of them seemed to have consented to it so that would make it fit better into the companionate marriage. 

The modern definition

The marriage seems to be driven by wealth, power, and lust. I believe this would be Shakespeare's illustration of marriage in aristocracy during the Elizabethan era. I also think this is the most disdainful marriage in the eyes of Shakespeare because of the following passage in the last act of A Midsummer Night's Dream. Theseus & Hippolyta wonder about the events in the forest that happened the night before. Theseus dismisses it but Hippolyta trails off with an interesting thought.

HIPPOLYTA: 'Tis strange, my Theseus, that these lovers speak of.

THESEUS: More strange than true. I never may believe

These antique fables nor these fairy toys.

Lovers and madmen have such seething brains,

Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend

More than cool reason ever comprehends.

The lunatic, the lover, and the poet

Are of imagination all compact.

One sees more devils than vast hell can hold—

That is the madman. The lover, all as frantic,

Sees Helen’s beauty in a brow of Egypt.

The poet’s eye, in fine frenzy rolling,

Doth glance from heaven to Earth, from Earth to heaven.

And as imagination bodies forth

The forms of things unknown, the poet’s pen

Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing

A local habitation and a name.

Such tricks hath strong imagination,

That if it would but apprehend some joy,

It comprehends some bringer of that joy.

Or in the night, imagining some fear,

How easy is a bush supposed a bear!

HIPPOLYTA: And all their minds transfigured so together,

More witnesseth than fancy’s images

And grows to something of great constancy,

But, howsoever, strange and admirable.

I believe Hippolyta's last words came directly from the mouth of Shakespeare. He admits that love may be seen as crazy and exaggerated but it is not so irrational as it may seem. Actually, although, in A Midsummer Night's Dream, the lover's experiences with love range from rash & fantastical to pure & undeterred it's consistent with and spans across the vast human experience of love. And love, whether it ends with a committed marriage or sorrow is still more admirable than a safety net of a calculated marriage. 

I just interviewed Ian Mckellen!

I just came across a gem! There is a website called Stage Work Mckellen where you can hold your own interactive interview with Ian Mckellen about Shakespeare and Richard III. How cool is that?! You can ask him questions like:

Is the play Richard III historically accurate?

Why is the play so popular?

Should we have sympathy for Richard?

But before he'll answer you, YOU have to give him your response to these questions. He also gives his own critique and interpretation of speeches and stage and film renditions of the play. Ian Mckellen as a Shakespeare professor! He explains that his version of the opening speech in Richard III  was shortened for film purposes, and that words were put that Richard said in Henry VI part 3, like we talked about in class yesterday. You can find the screenplay Ian Mckellen wrote, with more notes, at www.mckellen.com or click here for a direct link his screenplay.

If you're not interested in Richard III, you can also ask him questions about Shakespeare like:

Should Shakespeare be read so that it's obvious it's written in verse?

Is it ridiculous to make 14 year-olds study Shakespeare?

Was Shakespeare interested in politics?

If what I wrote didn't make much sense, here's a video that explains Stage Work Mckellen.
.

• How does it serve the play and the study of Shakesepare? I think this site is an excellent source for those studying Richard III. Ian Mckellen provides an interpretation of the beginning speech and gives you and opportunity to ask questions about it. He also offers other versions of the speech on film and stage for you to watch and compare yourself. The questions about Shakespeare in general are a little more tailored to Ian Mckellen and his career, so it's not the best resource for Shakespeare overall. 
• How well does it use available media? It links to videos, texts, and many other resources. Just the format of the site in general makes use of all sorts of media. 
• Will this reach audiences? Referring to the literal answer to this question I'm not too sure about this, since I don't think this site is marketed very well. It was by chance that I came along and found it. Will is reach into the lives of those who do happen to find it? Yes. It combines popular culture, modern references and historical references.
• Is it just a gimmick or is this a substantial contribution to the study of Shakespeare? I think this is a substantial contribution to the study of Shakespeare. Just like our blogs, this is a way to learn about Shakespeare through someone elses eyes! Ian Mckellen is passionate about Shakespeare, and he really does know his stuff. I think this would be a perfect media to use in a classroom setting to get students involved and interested in Richard III and Shakespeare.

 Now take a look at this site! It's a unique resource about Shakespeare through the mind of someone who knows a thing or two about him, to the say the least.

No Fear

While I was reading the end of Act II (Act II Scene IV) I thought I had just read a pivotal point in the play but wasn't sure if I quite understood it. I hopped on to SparkNotes to find a summary of the Act to make things more clear, but instead I found No Fear Shakespeare. I remembered one of our classmates mentioning it in class so I decided to check it out.

As you can see in the picture, No Fear Shakespeare has the original Shakespeare text with a modern "translation" right beside it. Not only did it clarify any questions I had but it also adds useful information like specific places (i.e. sanctuary in Westminster Abbey) and names. I found the names particularly helpful in keeping the dialogue straight because it's easy to get mixed up in who a person is talking about.

So thank you, No Fear Shakespeare. I think you're an excellent tool that doesn't dumb down Shakespeare, or take away from the original text (because it is right there to compare). If only I would've had this in grade school!

Richard is Satan so Shakespeare was probably Mormon

I now understand what Bevington was talking about when he said that Shakespeare took the liberty to condense history in Richard III. So far, If I understand correctly, within a couple of days Richard has murdered his brother, proposed to Lady Anne (he killed her husband and father-in-law within a week I'm guessing since the scene takes place next to a fresh corpse), King Edward IV died, Hastings has been beheaded, three men have been sentenced by Richard, and Prince Edward has come to take the crown. What a week!

Richard's ability to manipulate Lady Anne into marrying him is very puzzling to me. After reading the scene I was not convinced by the dialogue that he had succeeded in seducing her, there had to be something else going on. I was very curious to see if viewing a performance of the scene would change my mind, and lo and behold Mandy posted the clip!

But I still don't think there was any romance in the scene. I see pity, fear, and selfishness on both their parts. Mandy, David and I discussed via IntenseDebate that women during that time in history were only powerful through royalty or their husband's title. While self interest is a motivator for Richard, it could be a motivator for Lady Anne, as well. I also think that Lady Anne knew well the evils Richard had done and could do and she saw this "giving in" as a way to protect herself. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, right? Also, does anyone else notice how pitiful Richard is in that scene? How much of that is an act and how much of that is a glimpse into the pathetic, cowardly man he truly is? I have to admit that this makes me think of the scripture about Satan in 2 Nephi: 24--

16They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and shall consider thee, and shall say: Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?

1. This evil, crippled man destroys so many lives, manipulates people into throwing away their principles, exudes greed, and with one lie after another climbs his way to rule a kingdom? By no means do I intend for this to be a sermon, but it's something to think about.