Witchcraft: Salem in the 1690’s and Europe in the Middle Ages… Can we even compare the two?

Watch this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpQGmy-pLRk about the most famous witchcraft trials of the history of the USA, dated from 1692. Which relations can you establish between the facts of Salem and the persecution of witchcraft that we have studied in this module? Discuss this question in the forum.

 

I’m not even sure how to begin a comparison of the witchcraft trials of Salem versus the persecution of witchcraft in the middle ages in Europe. The first thing that struck me was that Salem was a short, intense period of mass hysteria, utterly chaotic in its persecution of witches, while the search for witches in medieval Europe, while still cruel and ignorant, was more calculated.

In Salem, the accused could be found guilty simply by the accusations of their accusers, especially when “spectral evidence” was introduced. There was no way to refute these claims, so the accused were guilty without any sort of real proof. It was literally one person’s word against another, and the accused’s word had no value; they had no defense whatsoever. In medieval Europe, there was at least a chance of reprieve because the courts looked for “evidence”, especially if the interrogations were done by the inquisitors, rather than local courts. That, I suppose, is the similarity between the two. In European local courts, many more witches were accused and trialed because of small-town mentality, a sort of “mob mentality”, which is exactly what seemed to happen in Salem, a small town overtaken by mass hysteria and fear of one’s own neighbors.

While Europeans searched for witches to understand unknown tragedies, such as crop failure and infantile death (which was inevitable during those times), the people of Salem accused others of witchcraft, mostly out of spite against their neighbors, for revenge, and to further their own agendas. I could almost understand searching for a source to blame for tragedies that could not be understood at the time – we have done that for thousands of years through the concept of deities and such… but to accuse your neighbors of witchcraft to exact revenge for long-standing feuds – it’s just beyond my scope of empathy.

The accusations of witchcraft in medieval Europe were a way to eradicate paganism and any religion other than Christianity, and so started by the church but persecuted by the public and the secular courts mostly, such the witch hunts were started from above and prolonged by the proletariat. However, the afflicted in Salem appear to have behaved in outlandish ways, either to seek attention or for such intense fear of the devil in a severely strict religious society, by poisoning of fungus on rye (which I do think is a distinct possibility in some cases), or for revenge-filled purposes. The attacks started at the bottom, with public outcry, and spread like wildfire. The courts and the accusers all had something to gain, while the public itself was beset with terror at the thought of the devil among them or at being innocent and accused, punishable by certain death, except to claim guilt and name names, thus their lives be spared. I do believe that Mercy of Salem suffered from post-traumatic stress after seeing her entire family massacred, and then years later, hearing that the attacks had resumed nearby, thus she struck out at someone similar in features to those that killed her family and named him a witch. I have some sympathy for her alone. I don’t know what beset the original children, but I suspect a neurological or psychological disorder was at play.

There are some similarities between the two instances of witchcraft persecution, but so many differences in motive, time period, politics, beliefs, natural disasters, and deaths of unknown origin. It really is a Herculean task to compare the two; one could write an entire thesis on the subject or make it their life’s work, really, as I’m sure many historians do.

The Name of the Rose: Are all Inquisitors Created Equal?

Watch the movie The Name of the Rose, based on Umberto Eco’s book and directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud. How is the inquisitor Bernard Gui characterized? Does it match the image of the medieval inquisitors as we have studied them in this unit? Explain why.  

 

First of all, The Name of the Rose was a fantastic movie, despite my doubts early on. I expected the film to center around Bernard Gui as the main character, but he did not make his appearance until the very end. Based on the limited scenes that Bernard Gui participated in, in conjunction with the evocative back story provided by William of Baskerville in his confession to his apprentice, Adso, Bernard was bull-headed and perhaps, intentionally ignorant, of the facts of the case. It was his way or no way – death to anyone who dared speak out against him. I think this characterization fits with how we think of inquisitors in modern society, but it is completely opposite of the medieval inquisitors’ characterizations, based on real evidence, that we have studied in this unit.

 

I was more moved by the mystery of the book and William’s quest to solve the crimes than I was impressed by the portrayal of the inquisitor. It seems William is much more suited to the characterization of the medieval inquisitors we have studied because he does not act irrationally – he does his job. This is my understanding of how medieval inquisitors were supposed to act, but as time went on, they became hard-pressed by their superiors to set examples and make people afraid of magic, with the intent that patrons would come whole-heartedly to Christianity and give up their old customs, which threatened the existence of a new religion. William reminded me of an early scientist, almost like Sherlock Holmes, in his dedicated search for clues to the many deaths. Bernard, on the other hand, took testimony (during obvious duress) and did no research to find the real reasons for the crimes. He just attributed them to witchcraft and nearly killed an innocent girl. (Spoiler Alert): The film portrayal suggests she survived somehow, so I’d like to believe that. I still wonder why that particular book, out of the many books that were banned from the Bible throughout time, held such importance. Surely other texts used humor, as well?

Magic Today Versus Magic in the Middle Ages

How would you value the magical thought today in comparison to magic in the Middle Ages? Do you think we have prejudices regarding this period? Are we still under the legacy of the Renaissance artists, who introduced themselves as the ‘light’ after some ‘Dark Ages’ for ‘marketing purposes’?

Let me begin by saying that I believe in magic – because the world is cynical without wonderment. What I call magic is called miracles by some and science by others. I’ve always wanted to believe in magic, but I think it was my study of hard sciences that made me realize they are one and the same. The conception and birth of a child can be seen as a miracle. The odds are stacked against conception, yet it happens all the time. There is more space within an atom than surrounding it – I don’t remember exact measurements, but it’s mind-boggling. The fact that we live in the “Goldilocks Zone”, where water is liquid, we have atmosphere, oxygen, et cetera, is a scientific wonder. The idea that the universe started out as mere particles and star dust, which have found their way into planets, people, objects… Or consider physics: you cannot place your hand on top of a table. It is not that simple. The atoms of your hand interact with the atoms of the table, so on a molecular level, your hand and the table are one. How did the universe start? Where did those initial particles which became atoms and elements come from? Is the universe cyclical in nature? My point is that we have just as many unknowns now as we did in the Middle Ages, but instead of using “magic” to describe phenomena, we use “science”. I think, from a mathematical perspective, they are one and the same: the odds of any of these things happening are astronomical.

I don’t know that there are many others that see things the way I do. I think many people today view magic as impossible or trickery, something like Santa Claus or a magician’s sleight of hand. So, for them, I suspect they don’t value magic very much and relegate it to children’s fantasy. I highly value magic. I want to believe in magic because it makes the world more amazing. My logical, scientific brain tells me otherwise, but I would love to believe in fairies and wood nymphs. I’d like to believe that unicorns existed and we haven’t discovered their bones yet. Why dragons seen as magical, but dinosaurs aren’t? Simply because we found fossil evidence of the latter? Magic means so many different things to different people, so placing a value on magical thought today seems nearly impossible.

On the other hand, it feels rather easy to say that magic was held in high regard during the Middle Ages because the practices were so commonplace. Magic then is valued as holistic medicine is today, in a way. Both have skeptics in their time, but both can be supported by anecdotal evidence and as an explanation for the curious events that surround us. Many people across the world practice holistic medicine today and have for thousands of years. It’s considered medicine – not magic. Yet, skeptics would disagree on that terminology.

As far as the two latter questions in this assignment, I don’t think we are necessarily prejudiced against this period. Many people regard the beliefs of the time as ignorant or false, but at the same time, many people are intrigued, curious, and caught up in the stories of the time, which is why this academic field is so popular and why we have so many movies based in this period. I think, if anything, prejudices are unintended and mixed. I believe we do fall victim to the legacy of the “Enlightenment” following the “Dark Ages”, but I attribute that to the way we are taught as children in school. I didn’t realize the “Dark Ages” were so full of excitement, discoveries, and rich history until many years later (partly because my husband is a history major). When I was a child, I thought the Dark Ages meant that during that period, there was no light. That, somehow, it was always night and people were uncivilized heathens because they had “lost” the knowledge of earlier civilizations. How we teach this history affects how people understand its significance.

Magic in the Middle Ages: An Unexpected MOOC

So, along with my “Shakespeare in Community” MOOC, I’ve also been taking a “Magic in the Middle Ages” MOOC. I expected the course to be, well, about magic. So far, this is not really the case. I imagine magic as faeries and nymphs and unicorns and all things whimsical and mysterious… Magic during the medieval period was not seen as such. It was full of mystery, sure, but it was feared by the new religion – Christianity, as it could undermine its authority. Thus, the parishioners of the faith were warned and scared into abandoning their charms and talismans, and most of all, to avoid those who practiced the “dark arts”. It was a progression, as at first, there was a difference denoted between good magic (to heal) and bad magic (to harm). However, this soon descended into all magic being regarded as the devil’s work. Witches and others associated with these magics were sought out by inquisitors, as well as local churches and the general public. This is a long and complicated history, and if you wish to pursue it further, I encourage you to take up a history or literature course of the time or to simply take the free MOOC at some point.

Nevertheless, I want to share my forum posts on here, as they do provide some insight into the period and my understanding of the topics. You may need background knowledge to appreciate the arguments presented, and if you like, you can watch the videos I’ll include as links to better give you a sense of what the heck I’m talking about. So far, I’ve written three forum posts for this course, and there shall be two to three more in the coming weeks. Enjoy!

Benedick and Beatrice: A Love Story Condensed

For this assignment in Shakespeare in Community, we were given many tools to try to find different ways into the text:

“This week’s text lectures have considered the way a Shakespeare play moves from one medium to another…For the assignment this week, we encourage you to look at what else individual words can tell us, either in Much Ado About Nothing or in one of the other plays in this course. What words stand out when you close read the text on your own? What words stand out when you use a digital tool to visualize the words or to look at them from a distance?”

“The goal for this assignment is not to make something or break something, but to experiment with at least one tool you haven’t used and to see how it might help you encounter Shakespeare in a new way.”

So, since Much Ado About Nothing is now my favorite Shakespearean play, I decided to try experimenting with a condensed version of Benedick’s and Beatrice’s love story. Here are the results via Voyant and Coggle:

Benedick and Beatrice Love Story 2

 

Benedick and Beatrice Love Story 3Benedick and Beatrice Love Story 4

 

Note that in all four word bubbles, Benedick and Beatrice are most prominent. This is due to the frequent mention of their names within the diaglogue, but also because they were frequent speakers, and I chose to keep the speakers’ denotations. The next prominent word that jumps out at me is love, which is befitting of a love story. Many of the words are simple connecting words, conjunctions and such, that appear often in any sort of text. However, I do see a significant amount of pronouns: me, my, she, her, they, and you. I didn’t notice this preponderance while reading through the text itself, searching for key scenes that were quite memorable in the movie.

Benedick_and_Beatrice_A_Love_Story_Condensed

(This is a PDF of a weird, branching visualization of several key scenes of Much Ado About Nothing)

I don’t know that these exercises have allowed me to encounter Shakespeare in a new way, necessarily… I think being able to hear the words come alive in theatrical and film versions has really changed the way I view Shakespeare, particularly in Much Ado About Nothing, which has opened my mind to adaptations of these classics. Before now, I sought out the most “accurate” re-tellings of these stories, if such a thing even exists, but my desire to see my favorite actors and director put on this play (Joss Whedon’s 2012 version of the same title) allowed me the opportunity to watch a Shakespeare play in a completely new light.

I encourage you to explore new ways into Shakespeare — it is well worth the effort!

 

Here is the text I used to create these visualizations. It is a a set of scenes that represent the three stages of their courtship: absolute denial, dishonest love (love by way of trickery, with the best of intentions), and true love. The last line is probably my favorite of the whole play. Oh, the irony. 😉

Benedick’s and Beatrice’s Love Story: The Condensed Version

BENEDICK

That a woman conceived me, I thank her;

that she brought me up, I likewise give her most

humble thanks. But that I will have a recheat

winded in my forehead or hang my bugle in an

invisible baldrick, all women shall pardon me.

Because I will not do them the wrong to mistrust

any, I will do myself the right to trust none. And the

fine is, for the which I may go the finer, I will live a

bachelor.

PRINCE

I shall see thee, ere I die, look pale with love.

BENEDICK

With anger, with sickness, or with hunger,

my lord, not with love. Prove that ever I lose more

blood with love than I will get again with drinking,

pick out mine eyes with a ballad-maker’s pen and

hang me up at the door of a brothel house for the

sign of blind Cupid.

 

LEONATO

Well, niece, I hope to see you one day fitted

with a husband.

BEATRICE

Not till God make men of some other metal

than earth. Would it not grieve a woman to be

overmastered with a piece of valiant dust? To make

an account of her life to a clod of wayward marl?

No, uncle, I’ll none. Adam’s sons are my brethren,

and truly I hold it a sin to match in my kindred.

 

BENEDICK

This can be no trick. The

conference was sadly borne; they have the truth of

this from Hero; they seem to pity the lady. It seems

her affections have their full bent. Love me? Why, it

must be requited! I hear how I am censured. They

say I will bear myself proudly if I perceive the love

come from her. They say, too, that she will rather

die than give any sign of affection. I did never think

to marry. I must not seem proud. Happy are they

that hear their detractions and can put them to

mending. They say the lady is fair; ’tis a truth, I can

bear them witness. And virtuous; ’tis so, I cannot

reprove it. And wise, but for loving me; by my troth,

it is no addition to her wit, nor no great argument of

her folly, for I will be horribly in love with her! I

may chance have some odd quirks and remnants of

wit broken on me because I have railed so long

against marriage, but doth not the appetite alter? A

man loves the meat in his youth that he cannot

endure in his age. Shall quips and sentences and

these paper bullets of the brain awe a man from the

career of his humor? No! The world must be peopled.

When I said I would die a bachelor, I did not

think I should live till I were married. Here comes

Beatrice. By this day, she’s a fair lady. I do spy some

marks of love in her.

 

URSULA

But are you sure

That Benedick loves Beatrice so entirely?

HERO

So says the Prince and my new-trothèd lord.

URSULA

And did they bid you tell her of it, madam?

HERO

They did entreat me to acquaint her of it,

But I persuaded them, if they loved Benedick,

To wish him wrestle with affection

And never to let Beatrice know of it.

URSULA

Why did you so? Doth not the gentleman

Deserve as full as fortunate a bed

As ever Beatrice shall couch upon?

HERO

O god of love! I know he doth deserve

As much as may be yielded to a man,

But Nature never framed a woman’s heart

Of prouder stuff than that of Beatrice.

Disdain and scorn ride sparkling in her eyes,

Misprizing what they look on, and her wit

Values itself so highly that to her

All matter else seems weak. She cannot love,

Nor take no shape nor project of affection,

She is so self-endeared.

URSULA

Sure, I think so,

And therefore certainly it were not good

She knew his love, lest she’ll make sport at it.

HERO

No, not to be so odd and from all fashions

As Beatrice is cannot be commendable.

But who dare tell her so? If I should speak,

She would mock me into air. O, she would laugh

me

Out of myself, press me to death with wit.

Therefore let Benedick, like covered fire,

Consume away in sighs, waste inwardly.

It were a better death than die with mocks,

Which is as bad as die with tickling.

 

BENEDICK

Soft and fair, friar.—Which is Beatrice?

BEATRICE

I answer to that name. What is your will?

BENEDICK

Do not you love me?

BEATRICE

Why no, no more than reason.

BENEDICK

Why then, your uncle and the Prince and Claudio

Have been deceived. They swore you did.

BEATRICE

Do not you love me?

BENEDICK

Troth, no, no more than reason.

BEATRICE

Why then, my cousin, Margaret, and Ursula

Are much deceived, for they did swear you did.

BENEDICK

They swore that you were almost sick for me.

BEATRICE

They swore that you were well-nigh dead for me.

BENEDICK

’Tis no such matter. Then you do not love me?

BEATRICE

No, truly, but in friendly recompense.

LEONATO

Come, cousin, I am sure you love the gentleman.

CLAUDIO

And I’ll be sworn upon ’t that he loves her,

For here’s a paper written in his hand,

A halting sonnet of his own pure brain,

Fashioned to Beatrice. He shows a paper.

HERO

And here’s another,

Writ in my cousin’s hand, stol’n from her pocket,

Containing her affection unto Benedick.

She shows a paper.

BENEDICK A miracle! Here’s our own hands against

our hearts. Come, I will have thee, but by this light

I take thee for pity.

BEATRICE I would not deny you, but by this good day, I

yield upon great persuasion, and partly to save your

life, for I was told you were in a consumption.

BENEDICK

Peace! I will stop your mouth.

They kiss.

BENEDICK

Come, come, we are friends. Let’s have a

dance ere we are married, that we may lighten our

own hearts and our wives’ heels.

LEONATO

We’ll have dancing afterward.

BENEDICK

First, of my word! Therefore play, music.—

Prince, thou art sad. Get thee a wife, get thee a wife.

Shakespeare in Community: End of Course Self-Reflection

Although I have yet to post reflections on Much Ado About Nothing and The Tempest because I am still digesting the material and swirling it around in my brain, I have completed the “End of Course Self-Reflection” for Shakespeare in Community, which offers prompts to consider about the learning experience thus far. I’ve included these thoughts here, but check back for reflections and assignments specific to the last two plays of the course.

(Sneak peek: I shall write a passionately positive, biased, review on Joss Whedon’s version of Much Ado About Nothing starring Amy Acker as Beatrice and Alexis Denisof as Benedick… It is biased because I’ve held the director and actors in high regard for years, so I went into the film expecting greatness, and even my expectations were exceeded!)

Without further delay, I present my “End of Course Self-Reflection”:

“Reflect on your own encounters with Shakespeare during the second two weeks of this course. What new things have you learned about Shakespeare? What discoveries have you made? Consider also the challenges you’ve faced and how you worked to overcome them?”

The more I delve into Shakespeare, in this course and in the film and play adaptations, the more I come to appreciate, and dare I say, love it. The videos in the course and the posts for each play have been immensely useful to help me wrap my head around complicated plots, themes, and characters. Before, when I would seek out a production of Shakespeare, I would look for something that would be as similar to what I would see in Shakespeare’s time. That has its own value, of course, hence my enjoyment at watching random plays at Renaissance Faires, which are in true form to the 16th century (i.e. VERY interactive with the audience). However, it was my viewing of Much Ado About Nothing that completely swept me away. I was determined to see Joss Whedon’s version because of the director and the cast, particularly Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker. I knew, on that alone, I would enjoy the film. However, I was surprised that the adaptation was quite modern – I can’t even place it… 1920’s, perhaps? The modern adaptation and the decision to film in black and white took nothing away from Shakespeare’s original work, as I always suspected such adaptations would. I even related more to the characters, immersed myself in the plot, and troubled much less over the words. I shall not judge new versions of Shakespeare on their closeness to his original writing, as there are many versions of the “originals” as well, as I have learned in this course. My eyes have been opened to a whole new literary world!

“Write about the work you’ve done for this course. Include one or more links to examples of your work. (You can link to the work itself, if you shared it on the web, or to a Forum post or Facebook thread where you talk about the work.) Discuss the evolution of your work from the first half of the course to the second half. How were your encounters with the first two plays different from your encounters with the second two? Did your own work and responses to the plays also evolve? Link to a discussion forum (or one of your own posts) that felt especially rich to you. Feel free to cut and paste specific sentences, if there are lines you wrote that you’re especially proud of.

Consider your work on the final project. How did you tackle or adapt the assignment? How do you feel about your own accomplishment? Link to it here, if possible, or just talk about the choices you made.”

I feel, with each new assignment and reflection that I post on my blog, http://www.literaryfaerie.com, I come to understand Shakespeare a little better; I see past the words to the story, yet I appreciate the words on their own terms. For example, I found that I understand the whole of the work by watching it as a play or a film, which has helped me get beyond the words I struggle with. Yet, the assignments force me to look at the words and dissect them, study them, and see what jumps out at me. When I wrote a poem based on “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, which I posted to my blog, I first printed out many verses that stood out to me for certain words or their content, in general. I was more attracted to the phrasing of words than to some of the words themselves, so I played around with them. I used the phrasing, but out of context or said by different characters, to change their meaning, yet keep the lyricism. It was fun and quite the experiment. I’ve enjoyed looking at Shakespeare with fresh eyes, rather than just critically analyzing the literature, which I’ve also written on my blog for each play we’ve sampled and have done so in every study of Shakespeare throughout my schooling. I have been more excited for each activity and reflection as we have progressed into the course. The activities truly are experimental, which is what I strive to do in my blog – to travel outside my comfort zone to experience something new, for myself and for my readers. I have yet to tackle the final project. I am a bit intimidated because it is a video reproduction of one of our plays in some form, but I am also enthusiastic at the prospect. I know it will enrich my creativity even more so than this course already has. I will undoubtedly post it on my blog, http://www.literaryfaerie.com, as well as to my twitter account, @literaryfaerie. There are also links to my various assignments and thoughts on twitter, as well – some I’ve reshared with @hackshakespeare and/or #moocspeare, as a kind of quote from my blog tweet, but I have written original content on that twitter account, as well, so I can share my insights as they occur to me. This has been the most interactive course I’ve taken through Coursera, despite the lack of tests or required assignments and peer assessments. The freedom of expression for exploring Shakespeare is in stark contrast to the dreary study of it often found in traditional classrooms. I could not speak higher of my regard for this course.

“Finally, the questions that began the film series made for the course: Why do we need Shakespeare? What is Shakespeare for?

And the questions from the final film: Why do we need the humanities? What are the humanities for?”

As a student of the humanities, I find the second question easier to answer than the first, but I’ll give it a shot. We need Shakespeare like we need all great artists, whether they share with us the written word, an aesthetic for the eyes, or the sounds of a musician. Shakespeare commented on his everyday life, but he also wrote with themes that transcend time, characters that we can relate with to this day, and he wrote with beautiful prose, verse, and lyricism, which, albeit, may be hard to understand today because the language has changed as it always does, but it is worth the effort to hear the beauty in his words. There is more magic in those words than reading them on a page, and as a writer, I didn’t think I would ever admit that. The past few years, I have given more credit to other mediums than in the past. As a child, I valued the “book” over anything else. I still collect books of all kinds. Yet, plays have interaction — you are literally “there” with the actors — and films can provide special effects and scenery that we may not have even been able to imagine for ourselves. Films can transport us to other worlds because they are created by others — we see into the mind’s eye of our fellow human beings, more so than what our minds can conjure on their own. Everyone sees and observes something different in their surroundings because no one person’s perspective is the same, which is why literature and art can be interpreted in numerous ways. We interpret the world with the power of our past and the scope of our imaginations. We put our mark on this world in many formats, and there are infinite possibilities if we are willing to share our vulnerabilities and have courage. Shakespeare is an integral part of the humanities for his genius and his wit, no more or less so than Chaucer or Oscar Wilde or Sophocles or J.K. Rowling. They all add to our cultural understanding, our pure enjoyment, and our appreciation for life itself. We step outside our own little pedestrian world and follow some grand adventure, get our adrenaline running, and imagine what couldn’t be imagined. The humanities, and the arts in particular, have, in many ways, inspired science (think of all the advances made on account of science fiction), and science has brought us into a future, undoubtedly unbelievable to those of Shakespeare’s time. Yet, his themes ring true many centuries later, as I hope, artists of today can inspire future generations.

 

Breaking Dreams For Love

“For this activity, you’ll break something as an act of literary analysis. Choose a selection of words from A Midsummer Night’s Dream and rearrange them into something else. You can use any or all of the words as many or as few times as you’d like. What you build from them can take any shape: text, image, video, a collage, a poem, a pile, digital, physical, sense-making or otherwise… For this assignment, you will borrow ideas but you should also make them truly your own—by playing with, manipulating, applying, and otherwise turning them on their head.”

A love story that is NOT a love story, turned on its head, is a love story. Thus, this is my version of “breaking stuff”:

 

PROLOGUE

Shakespeare tells a tale of woe –

Of betrayal, hate, confusion, and spite.

This story of love is but a farce,

For love is made a mockery of:

Unrequited, illusioned, forbidden in the night.

Here protest I in love’s favor!

Not a comedy, but a tragic labor:

So go!

Hence you be soothed

In fairies’ soft light.

 

ONE

Fickle Demetrius proclaims, “I cannot love you” to fair Helena,

Yet she, in earnest, doth proclaim “I love you the more”

I will fawn on you, give me only leave to follow you.”

“How can dost love Hermia whilst you gave your love to me?

I shall change the story, as the dove now pursues the griffin.

The wildest creature doth not compare to thee or have your heart

As you have mine.”

Oh, the forgeries of jealousy!

 

When true lovers have ever been star-crossed,

Is it destiny or some other force,

Playing a scene on the stage of life?

 

Lysander, in defiance of gentle Hermia’s tyrannical father’s wishes

Asks “May I Marry Thee?”

“Steal forth from thy father’s home, into the wood.”

Hermia doth swearest her deepest vow:

“By Venus’ doves, by Cupid’s bow,

By all the vows which knitteth souls and prospers loves –

Tomorrow truly will I meet with thee.”

 

Oh, the night approaches…

And Hermia recalls to Lysander,

“In the wood where you and I

Were wont to lie

Upon faint primrose beds,

We shall meet,

Until then, we starve our sight

Till morrow deep midnight.”

 

TWO

In the darkest hours, the fairies play,

In forests, and meads, by paved fountains,

By rushy brooks – where there is nature, there are fairies.

“Let us dance our ringlets in the whistling wind and

Sing our sweet lullabies:

 

Lulla, lulla, lullaby,

Come not near our Fairy Queen

Never harm, nor spell or charm,

Our lovely lady, have thee peaceful slumber,

Lulla, lulla, lullaby,

Good night, sweet Queen,

This melody spells good night.

 

Waxen in their mirth,

The fairies away…

And that knavish sprite,

Robin Goodfellow, known as Puck,

Creates mischief in the woods.

“I, a merry wanderer of the night,

Jest to Oberon and attest to make things right.”

 

Asleep in the woods,

Lysander and his beloved, hiding from the Court,

Helena and her prey, the man who once loved her.

“These human mortals fall in the fresh lap of the crimson rose;

Sweet summer buds adorn the couples

As the moon washes the air of this ‘mazed world.”

Robin reflects, “This flower’s force in stirring love, long forgotten…

But here lies the maiden, sleeping sound on the dank and dirty ground.

Pretty soul, this charm doth owe…”

Sweet Puck anoints the eyelids of Demetrius, to right the wrong he committed.

 

THREE

Awake, they all, as daylight abates.

“Sweet Helena,” Demetrius praises.

My goddess, my love, divine and rare!”

“Do you mock me? To proclaim love to the unloved?” Helena asks with disdain.

Demetrius begs at her feet, “Tis you, my love, that I hast forgot…

Tender me, forsooth, with affection!

My heart is yours; one heart we can make of it

If we shall be interchained with an oath.”

“How I do quake with fear, if this but be a dream… I swoon with fear!” Helena exclaims.

 

“Heavens shield us gentle lovers with the break of day,” pleads Hermia.

“Alak, Lysander, where are you? No sound, no word?”

“Fear not, my precious Hermia.

Take thee at my innocence, for I was lost in the woods.”

 

By Nature’s hand, dew drops rest on crimson petals

And daylight shines through the forest canopy.

Nymphs and fairies hide away to sleep soundly.

 

From his palace, the Duke brings sweet peace.

With Demetrius desirous of Hermia no more,

Lysander is free to marry his beloved with blessings of the Court.

This eve, they shall blessed be,

And ever true in loving be.

 

EPILOGUE

All is mended, and tragedy avoided, which is a lover’s dream intended.

 

*This poem, though an original work of my own, borrows many lines, verbatim, from “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” by William Shakespeare. The lines have been altered in context, and in some cases, spoken by different characters, but nevertheless, the lyrical language is owed only to the great Bard.

*I read from the Folger Shakespeare Library for this edition of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”:

http://www.folgerdigitaltexts.org

A Midsummer Night’s Dream Is NOT A Love Story

Never before had I read or watched A Midsummer Night’s Dream until this morning. Despite some plot and theme preparation from my Shakespeare in Community MOOC, I still managed to hold onto preconceptions that a play about love and faeries would be, well, happy… and magical.

It took me a scene or two to familiarize myself with the characters, particularly because in this play, Puck was played simultaneously by a man and a woman (or so I suppose). While I was relegated to watch a movie version of Romeo and Juliet, I lucked out and found a theatrical production of MSND. In fact, the playbill read:

Harvard-Radcliffe Summer Theatre presents William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Summer 2007 stage production featuring the music of Felix Mendelssohn.

With no surprise, the actors, the sets, and the accuracy of Shakespeare’s language were all of the highest quality. I could have been transported to the Globe Theatre in England, were I not aware of my surroundings. I imagined myself sitting in the theatre during a live performance, which was authenticated as audience members occasionally, unwittingly, stepped in front of the camera, thus momentarily obscuring my view. There was an unbearably long (mere minutes), and oddly placed, intermission, and the orchestra was brilliant. My “seat” was far closer than if I attended the performance in person, so YouTube does have its benefits.

The mechanics of the performance aside, the content of the play truly caught me off-guard. I had no prior exposure to this play in any entirety (not counting a Disney show’s parody, which, in hindsight, did not cast much light on the subject, now that I have seen the actual play), so I experienced every word, every action, every confusing and infuriating moment for the first time. These were fresh emotions and reactions to a Shakespearean play, which I have not felt in many years, since other Shakespearean works have reappeared often throughout my life.

For a play about love, and it is, sort of, in many varied forms, MSND has much hatred, callousness, whining, degradation, and scorn – and that’s before the faeries make their mischief! My utmost surprise came at the lack of love toward Hermia by her father, Egeus. He is despicable and treats his daughter like dirt. Meanwhile, Helena basically harasses Demetrius and even asked him to treat her as his dog (literally) if only he allowed her to love him. She is desperate and crass, loud and rude. After the night’s confusion, Demetrius does come to love her (probably by spell, but since he did mention that he loved her when they were children, it’s possible that his love still exists), yet Helena pulls him down the aisle and must keep his attention during their brief ceremony. It is quite painful to watch. Hermia seems a sweet spirit, with no obvious faults, yet she is repeatedly abused by all the mortal men, including her father and especially during Lysander and Demetrius’ duel. I believe she is the most deserving of the term “victim”.

Finally, to end a very odd play indeed, is the “play within a play”, which is the most ridiculous thing I have ever witnessed, even if it was meant to be a farce. I was put off by the harsh comments of the audience (particularly the Duke) made during the play, even criticizing the actors in earshot and to their faces. Was this the norm in Shakespeare’s time or was this of his own imagining? Hippolyta seems utterly disgusted with her “lover”, Theseus, the Duke of Athens, and rather annoyed at the whole process of betrothal. Her responses to her own wedding and general bitchiness make me want to reread some of my Greek mythology to see why she carries this attitude. Was she forced into the marriage? Of course, the play does not address this; in fact, the Duke and his bride are minor characters in terms of time on stage.

Watching the play in theatre format made me feel part of the performance, but movie versions do have their place – for one thing, the audience is less distracting. Either medium is an exceptional way to see one of Shakespeare’s plays come to life. As we discussed this week in my course, Shakespeare’s plays have been translated into many languages and people even watch them without speaking the language of the land, so my aversion to Shakespeare for not understanding the “King’s English” seems rather arbitrary. And yes, naysayers will emphasize that Shakespeare often wrote and “borrowed” stories that were based on others’ work, such as folklore and poetry, rather than write completely original content, but he made the stories his own, which is what any good writer does. (Lord of the Rings has many mythological references, as does Star Wars, because the themes transcend time.) He used his skillful language, but more than that, he brings these stories to the “Every Man” even today because all patrons of his art can relate in some way to the themes and the powerful emotions. If you can follow a play without understanding the language, then one must think this is due to brilliant acting, directing, and of course, playwriting.

Finally, note that while Romeo and Juliet begins with love and ends in tragedy and A Midsummer Night’s Dream begins with tragedy and ends in “love”, I would attest that truer love is present between Romeo and Julietand the real tragedy lies in the seemingly happy, yet blissfully ignorant, lives of the newlyweds, and even more so, the adulterous Faerie Queen and the spiteful Faerie King.

*As quoted by the director of the production, Joshua Randall, in regard to Puck: “We thought of them as two halves of the same Puck rather than two Pucks. The main reason was because we wanted Puck to be able to explicitly express both female and male characteristics. Since the character of Puck is somewhat androgynous, many modern productions choose to have Puck played by a woman. However, in this production we were highlighting the gender roles and therefore did not want to choose only male or only female characteristics for Puck.”

The funniest scene in Romeo & Juliet as a “Word Cloud”

Romeo & Juliet Act 1, Scene 1 
SAMPSON My naked weapon is out. Quarrel, I will back
thee.
GREGORY How? Turn thy back and run?
SAMPSON Fear me not.
GREGORY No, marry. I fear thee!
SAMPSON Let us take the law of our sides; let them
begin.
GREGORY I will frown as I pass by, and let them take it
as they list.
SAMPSON Nay, as they dare. I will bite my thumb at
them, which is disgrace to them if they bear it.
editorial emendationHe bites his thumb.editorial emendation
ABRAM Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?
SAMPSON I do bite my thumb, sir.
ABRAM Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?
SAMPSON,editorial emendationaside to Gregoryeditorial emendation Is the law of our side if I
say “Ay”?
GREGORY,editorial emendationaside to Sampsoneditorial emendation No.
SAMPSON No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir,
but I bite my thumb, sir.
GREGORY Do you quarrel, sir?
ABRAM Quarrel, sir? No, sir.
SAMPSON But if you do, sir, I am for you. I serve as
good a man as you.
ABRAM No better.
SAMPSON Well, sir.

Enter Benvolio.

GREGORY,editorial emendationaside to Sampsoneditorial emendation Say “better”; here comes
one of my master’s kinsmen.
SAMPSON Yes, better, sir.
ABRAM You lie.
SAMPSON Draw if you be men.—Gregory, remember
thy washing blow.They fight.
BENVOLIO Part, fools!editorial emendationDrawing his sword.editorial emendation
Put up your swords. You know not what you do.