In the history of human thought, there were various issues, which even the brightest minds could not explain or measure in materiality of human perception. One of such issues is and always will be love and its nature. Shakespeare was one of those who managed to perceive the nature of love and explain it in his works. The play which unravels his perception of the nature of love is “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. The aim of the present paper is to outline what Shakespeare meant under the nature of love and how he explained it in his play. In this context, the central thesis is that, according to Shakespeare, the nature of love is not its specific origin or the same feeling; the nature of love is diversity, diversity of human nature and its unpredictability and spontaneity. In the next paragraphs, this statement will be proved by specific arguments and examples from the play.
The diversity as the nature of love is seen in Shakespeare’s description of various types of love, reasons why people love each other and circumstances brining them together. He depicts a “forced love” between Theseus and Hippolyta, a true love between Lysander and Hermia, an abusive love between Demetrius and Helena, and a primeval/ancient love between Oberon and Titania (Taylor 67). Although other kinds of love such as friendly love and love between father and daughter are described in the play, they are of little interest for this research. The discussed love is about passion and sexual attraction. One might say that all types of love mentioned above are only variations of one and the same phenomenon called “love”, and since the phenomenon is one, it should have one origin, the nature of it should be one (Greenfield 336). On the other hand, Shakespeare considered it to be different.
Just as every person has his/hers own life path, character, code of honor and moral, each person has a specific way of loving another individual and love of this person has entirely different origin, nature and mode of fulfillment (Green 46). Love of this person can match only with love of his/her partner and would not suite anybody else under the same circumstances. Although love has common features of making people softer like when Theseus allowed Lysander and Hermia to get married, or when Oberon decided to keep spell on Demetrius. It also makes people’s feelings more emotional and keen: Helen’s and Hermia’ quarrel because of two bewitched men, Oberon’s jealousy for Titania, collision between Demetrius and Lysander over Helena. Love makes fools of people; the best proof of this is Titania falling in love with Bottom in his donkey appearance. Although the influence of love on people is the same, its nature is different in each case.
Love between Theseus and Hippolyta is often called “forced”, it may be so, if to compare it to a true, romantic love; but, from the perspective of Theseus and Hippolyta, as warriors of honor and duty, their union was not forced but a just one (Greenfield 338). As a warrior of honor, Hyppolita knew how to win and lose; as an Amazon, she knew that she could be only with the man who could be her equal and would conquer her (Greenfield 340). So Theseus’ words to her “I woo’d thee with my sword, and won thy love doing thee injuries” showed the nature of their love in warriors’ honor, duty and dignity (Shakespeare 1). The nature of their love cannot be transferred to any other couple. Under the same circumstances of dutiful nature of love, Hermia rebelled against her father and rejected even the idea of marrying someone else except for Lysander (Taylor 78).
The nature of love between Hermia and Lysander is purity, naivety and youth. Their love originated in romantic affection, which was more important for each of them than the rest of the world. Hermia was ready to reject her family duty, in order to be with her beloved. Their true love was like of Romeo and Juliet, and “the course of true love never did run smooth” (Shakespeare 5). The main feature of their love was its developing nature. It was not constant like in the first example of mature love between Theseus and Hippolyta, who fought with the whole world and found peace in each other (Green 48). Hermia and Lysander found love in each other, but that love brought them challenges to deal with and made them mature (Taylor 96). Their development was also changing their love, it was becoming stronger.
The nature of Helena’s and Demetrius’ love is inconsistency of their characters and life styles. As Lysander had characterized the situation: “Demetrius made love to Helena, and won her soul; and she, sweet lady, devoutly dotes upon this spotted and inconsistent man” (Shakespeare 4). The nature of their relationship is abusive and one-directed – one is giving and the other is only taking (Greenfield 338). One might say that this is not the same feeling of love as is in all other cases; in fact, it is the same feeling in case of Helen, but Demetrius had different human nature, so his feelings were consumptive and short-termed (Green 47).
Finally, the nature of love between Oberon and Titania is primeval wisdom and balance of male and female forces. Their love is eternal and overwhelming; it is part of the nature and has impact on it – “the childing autumn, angry winter, change from our debate” (Shakespeare 18). The nature of their love is complexity of the natural order of things, just as weather might be clam and pleasant, their relationship might be smooth and harmonious. Just as storm comes unexpectedly, their emotions and affections show up. Irrespective of any misunderstandings between them, their love is so old and primeval that nothing can stand on its way, even their own mistakes (Taylor 62).
Works Cited
Green, D.E. “A Midsummer Night Dream” Shakespeare Bulletin, 25.2 (2007): 45-49. Print.
Greenfield, T.N. “Our Nightly Madness: Shakespeare’s Dream Without the Interpretation of
Dreams” A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Critical Essays. Ed. Kehler, D. New York,
NY: Routledge, 2001. 331-345. Print.
Shakespeare, W. & Roma, G. Midsummer Night’s Dream: Oxford School Shakespeare.
Oxford, OX: Oxford University Press. 2009. Print.
Taylor, M. Shakespeare’s Imitations. Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press. 2002. Print.
