'The Female Archetype in Shakespeare: Marriage and Love\r'

'The thesis for the following story will be presented as marriage as a tooth root in Shakespeargon’s symbolise as it is applicable to casing development in fe priapic events.  Shakespeargon’s  limning of women in A midsummer shadow’s ambition will be one center of the al-Qaida.  A nonher theme and thesis supporter of the paper will be presented in the item that in Shakespe be’s spiel the theme of honey is total to the plot for both a set outdy and a tragedy, as such the presence of make do in women will be examined as a transitional tool.\r\nOther avenues of discussion in this analytical paper will include m new(prenominal)s, pistillate prophecy, and virginity, and as Rackin states, â€Å" none adult female is the protagonist in a Shakespearian history see.  reincarnation gender role definitions positive silence as a feminine virtue, and Renaissance sexual mythology associated the feminine with body and matter as a opp osed to masculine intellect and flavour.” (329), thus, women could non be considered even a main character in these commands unless she became married, or as in A Midsummer nighttime’s Dream the woman sacrificed herself for her male counterpart.\r\nShakespe ar’s role make up A Midsummer wickedness’s Dream is not tho an allegory, entirely within the story there exists other allegory.  Shakespeare creates a play in which events take mail as they would in the certain world, or manifestly so, alone juxtaposed with this storyline Shakespeare includes a hour story with Oberon and titania thus presenting to the hearing a layered story.  Aristotle wrote that art is an satisfy which is defined through and through mimesis; as such, the play A Midsummer iniquity’s Dream is written partly as a colloquy of the possibilities of purport-time (as washbasin be witnessed with the world of the story) and partly as a dialogue for the fantas tical (as is written pertaining to the faeries of the play).\r\nThe argument then arises from, Jacobus, that offers, is period of play an imitation of biography, or is life an imitation of free rein, and in Shakespeare’s play, the answer is cleverly disguised in the midst of his layering of world in fantasy in which the real twists so engrossed in the fantasy, as if the scenes club in the forest are apiece down the stairs the spell of Puck.  It is in Puck’s ingenuousness that all of the protagonists exist and thereby the answer to Jacobus’ disbelief whitethorn be analyzed.\r\nThe theme of Shakespeare’s play ass aptly be stated as ‘love in idleness’ since this is also the give of the flower Robin Goodfellow or Puck uses to contract the characters to decide in love with each other (Lysander with Helena then Demetrius with Helena and as Oberon uses it to urinate titanium oxide to fall in love with fag)\r\n in time markd I wh ere the bolt of Cupid fell: It fell upon a little western flower, Before milk-white, now gallant with loves wound, And maidens call it love-in-idleness. (Shakespeare 2004; Act 2 Scene 1)\r\nIn this plot, it is revealed that drama in part is imitating life.  Love in idleness is a circular event in life that seems abysmal in its foreplay, and desperate in its reality.  As each character falls in love with the victimize character, or is forced to fall in love with another person, Jacobus’ claim that characters are the building blocks of allowing the consultation to identify with the actions of the play as they relate to their life, is succinctly pandering to Aristotle’s concepts of drama in imitation of art.\r\nThe characters frolic around the wood, hopelessly in love with one another, and loved by the wrong person, as is shown in the four couples Lysander, Hermia, Demetrius and Helena epoch the faeries in turn present the audience with how irrational this love in idleness is defined in demonstrate titanic oxide in love with Bottom who has been transformed into a donkey.  Aristotle’s definition for a tragic hero is one who is not in control of his own fate, but instead is control by the gods in one fashion or another (Jones 1962).\r\nThe theme of Shakespeare’s play delves into the godliness of his intent to present the audience in footmark with how to perceive their own lives and loves in relation to the events that flux in the woods.  In context of the play, Aristotle’s mimesis gives the audience a chance to pause and consider the precedent of love both in name of the reality that Shakespeare delivers with Lysander, Hermia, Demetrius and Helena and the motivation of love when it is juxtaposed with titanium dioxide and Bottom.\r\nAs Jacobus states, although drama has the ‘capacity to hold up an illusion of reality like the reflection in a mirror: we take for granted epoch recognizing that it is n onetheless illusory’ (Jacobus 2005; 1-2).  Thus, it may be extolled from this description that illusion transforms the allegory of the play into applicable terms whereby the audience becomes not only immersed in the play and its actions and characters, but also takes those actions and characters to stand as testaments to their life nonpluss.\r\nThe fact that the characters lose themselves in a tangle of darkness and fog and awake approached by Theseus and Hippolyta who are likened to the gaurdians of the play or the characters of reason, stand in testement to the actions of the characters and it is trustworthy that Lysander and Hermia are united and Demetrius and Helena join together in a group wedding.\r\nShakespeare’s play hitherto does not end there but continues with the theme of love in idleness with the mechanicals execute the myth Pyramus and Thisbe in which both loers kill themselves because each assumes the other is dead.  This is Shakespeare†™s way of contributing both the graceful and loving end of one story, with the humans in the forest, as rise up as showing with this play, how love may go awry and become a tragedy.  The love in idleness theme is subsequently debunked in Shakespeare’s play to a greater extentover by the endings in which even Oberon and titanium oxide reunite.\r\nJacobus states, â€Å"The action of most drama is not drawn from our real experience of life, but from our potential or imagined experience” (Jacobus 2005; 1-2), thereby exhibiting the idea that a play can give the audience different proscenium displays or possibilities by which they may lead their life, or a review of what life may become.  The subject of drama as it applies to life then becomes more concentrate on avenues of probability and chance. Thus, in Shakespeare’s play A Midsummer night’s Dream the audience envisions three different chances of love; with the humans, with the faeries and wit h the blasted lovers as performed by the mechanicals.\r\nDrama then is a way in which a person may identify with fictitious characters and design their own possibility of pleasures through that character.  Often times drama leaves an audience member questioning life, be it positive or negative and thereby adhering to Aristotle’s ideas of reflection, and it is this reflection that makes us human.  In being disposed these different paths of love in A Midsummer Night’s Dream the audience is given the oppurtunity to envision life differently and vicariously through these characers.\r\nIn fact that is the purpose of drama, to present the audience with a vicarious option of examining life.  Although there is no ritual or religious interpretation associated with drama today (unless the playwright intends it) the genre of drama is best described as not only entertainment but a tool by which reality may be examained through make-believe characters in real life situa tions and themes.\r\nIn the theme that is present in Shakepeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream love in idleness is a very universal topic.  Although each character in the play has a deep devotion to another character such passion is lost in the woods when the characters are left to the devices of Puck, and his chicanery.  The guiding light of love in this play may best be seen with Oberon and Titania as they are the ruling factors of love.  Their love however has been thwarted due to the presence of an Indian boor and the jealousy of Oberon and the bullheadedness of Titania.  The theme within the theme in this context may best be described as compromise.\r\nThe relationship between Oberon and Titania my be defined as a quintessential part of the character develoment between male and female, â€Å"…Shakespeare depicts male protagnosts defending masculine…projects against both female characters who scupper to obstruct those projects and feminine ap peals to the audience that threatedn to discredit them.  IN shakespeare’s later…plays thos rfeminine voice become more insistent.\r\nThey both threaten to invalidate the great, inherited…myths that Shakespeare ready in his historiiographic sources and imply that abefore they masculine voice…can be accepted as valid,it essential come to terms with women and the subversive forced they represetn.  However, as currently as Shakesperae attmpts to incorporate those feminine forces, get hitched withign words and things, spirit and matter…(it) becomes problematic…” (Rackin 330).\r\nThis statement suggests that if Shakespeare did not marry off his female characters the audience would believe it as possible nor would they accept it.  In the case of Titania and Oberon, it is Oberon’s masculinity that must make Titania’s will submissive to him and to give him what he wants (in this case her Indian).  In this case, the two characters are already married and this struggle of wills suggests that a man must constantly be domineering and gain what he wants through force and trickery.\r\nThis shows that the dynamic of marriage in Shakepseare’s plays is exhibited with force.  In the other characters in the play, the one’s who are not yet married, that is Hermia and Helena, they are full of anticipation to get married but both had to first experience what it was like to not have their counterpart and suffere through the period of not being love; neither of the men actually suffer in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, which suggests that Shakespeare’s female characters must excavate their love, while the men of the play have no such duties.\r\nThe difference then between the marriad and the unwed woman in A Midsummer Night’s Dream is that the unmarried women must bring over the men that they are loved while the married woman, Titania, must re-learn obedience.\r\nThe theme of love is envisioned well in this play as Shakespeare chooses to focus on the power of love through marriage as a tool of union.  In union is open up the relevance of transisiton.  The characters in A Midsummer Night’s Dream only become to the full aware of their own intentions and feelings after they are given the drug from Puke and spend the night in the forest.  When awakened each character realizes their true desires.  In these desires in the morning the women are quieted because they feel as though they have seen the measure of their desire reflected in their male counterparts and as such it is only through marriage that they may be tamed.  Thus, Shakespeare’s female characters are revealed to be counterparts.\r\nThis essay has argued for the interpretation of Shakespeare’s characters in A Midsummer Night’s Dream to be the classical female archetypes such as wife, or lover.  The plan in the play reveals how women are induced to pers uasion and almost mesmerised by love and desire as is seen with Titania, Hermia, and Helena.  apiece character is in love, and at the end of the play this love becomes true instead of the farce of the stemma and middle of the play.  Love is the conquering power over women in Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.\r\nWork Cited\r\nJacobus, L.  The Bedford Introduction to Drama.  Bedford St. Martins.  2005.\r\nJones, John. On Aristotle and classic Tragedy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962.\r\nLevin, R.  Feminist Thematics and Shakespearean Tragedy.  PMLA, Vol. 103, No. 2 (Mar.,       1988), pp. 125-138.\r\nPrice, J. R.  Measure for Measure and the Critics: Towards a New Approach.\r\nShakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 2. (Spring, 1969), pp. 179-204.\r\nRackin, P. Anti-Historians: Womens Roles in Shakespeares Histories.\r\nTheatre Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3, Staging Gender. (Oct., 1985), pp. 329-344.\r\nShakespeare, W.   A Midsummer Night’s Dream.  Washington Press.  2004.\r\n'