Rationale: The section of text that I’ve pulled out from A Midsummer Night’s Dream is important because, by looking at it hand-in-hand with a contemporary piece and an Early Modern piece, it demonstrates two things: 1) Shakespeare is not outdated! It allows young and potentially first time readers to see that Shakespeare is dealing with issues that are still very much alive and up for debate in today’s society, and therefore Shakespeare is still very much alive! And 2) the potentially subversive nature of Shakespeare’s writing, which is endlessly interesting. This piece demonstrates so well Shakespeare’s ability to simultaneously play with traditional and modern models in a way that is subtle yet subversive because of the way it causes his audience to question traditionally accepted modes of being.
Objective: The objective of this exercise is to get students thinking outside of their own time and culture. Hopefully, by coupling a contemporary piece with an Early Modern piece, they will come to understand that we in today’s society are not the only people that have thought about these issues, that some debates have been raging for centuries. Also, this will be done with the hope of developing a more in depth view of Shakespeare as a writer who is both traditional and modern.
Materials: This exercise requires that each student have a copy of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, preferably the same edition, as well as paper handouts. It also requires students who are willing to play along and act out some short pieces.
Works Cited: I didn't really cite anyone, but they idea came from reading an exercise on the Folger Shakespeare Library, so I want to give due credit. Here's the link to the exercise that was my inspiration: http://www.folger.edu/eduLesPlanDtl.cfm?lpid=598.
And the primary text came from EEBO.
Exercise:
So, let’s say you meet someone, you start dating, and they are just everything you could ever hope for. You know, you want to spend every waking moment with this person. You get nervous but excited at the thought of seeing this person. You finish one another’s sentences and thinks it’s absolutely adorable. All that crap, right? And you decide this is the person, this is the woman, or this is the man, that you want to marry, that you want to spend the rest of your life with. There’s just one problem: Your parents don’t really approve of this person. They say things like, “Well, it’s your life, honey, but we just think you can do better, you can find someone who’s better for you.” They even go so far as to say they won’t allow you to marry this person.
How do you react? Do you explode and say, “You know, this is crazy. I’m in love with this person, and that’s all that matter. I just can’t listen to you. I have to marry this person.” Or do you listen and accept you parents’ advice, knowing that they know what’s best for you?
Discuss
Now, I want to show a short clip from a MTV series, entitled Parental Control. I picked this series because it will soon be running its seventh season, so I think it’s safe to assume that it is a popular show on a channel that almost exclusively targets a young adult audience, which is also our audience.
http://www.mtv.com/videos/misc/355379/tablespoon-of-love.jhtml#id=1607136
So, what is this? It’s a dramatized version of what we’ve been talking about, right? These parents have completely taken over. They’re saying, “Who you’ve picked isn’t good enough, and we can find you someone better.”
But all of this seems kind of out dated, right? I mean, I care very deeply for my parents and I respect their opinions, but hell if I’m going to let them tell me who I can and can’t marry. Right?
OK, so now I want you all to take a look at the piece of paper labeled Gibbon. I want to have two of you come up and read this aloud. Now, I want one of you to play
the role of Philogus and one of you play the role of Tychicus, and this is a debate, so I want you two to really play this, argue it out and try to make your audience believe your side.Have two students argue out the roles of Philogus and Tychicus. (See appendix one) You might need to stop them at times to make sure that what is being spoken is clear to those students who are listening.
Alright! So, what we’ve just heard was published in London in 1591 by Charles Gibbon. What does it tell us about the Early Modern period? They were discussing this same topic, right? Do parents have a say or don’t they? And there’s really no definitive ans
wer here, but I think it’s safe to say that Tichi represents a more traditional model of marriage—one in which children were considered the property of their parents to be given out at the parents’ discretion—and Philogus represented a more modern model of marriage, where individuals were given a chance to chose who they wanted to marry based on who they like, who they think best suits them.OK, so let’s keep these two contrasting models in mind and move onto the first act of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Take a look at the second sheet that I gave you, the one with the dialogue on it. I want three of you to come up here and play that scene out. (For the sake of time, I’ve chopped some of Egeus’ lines.)
Have three students act out the roles of Theseus, Egeus and Hermia. (See appendix two)
So, now that we’ve looked at the period piece about marriage, what can we infer from this section of the play? A very traditional model of marriage is being represented, yes? It’s not only represented, though. It’d dominant, right? It seems that way because it’s the Duke and father, the two most socially dominant people on the stage at this time, who are both arguing for and thereby supporting it. But what else is happening here? If we look at Hermia rather than the Duke and Egeus, what do we notice? Shakespeare’s being pretty modern too, right? He’s giving a very modern alternative to their traditional model of marriage.
And what does this tell us about Shakespeare? He’s being pretty subversive, isn’t he? Yes, he keeps the traditional model, but he’s slipping that modern idea in there too. If nothing else, he’s entertaining new ideas and allowing his audience to entertain new ideas.
So, as you move from here and continue reading the play, I want you to think about how Shakespeare is mixing in the modern, ways that he’s being subversive within in his own time and culture. Ask yourself: How is he getting those modern aspects in there, and why is he? How is he challenging, not just the traditional model of marriage, but traditional ideas held by his culture in general. What other cultural boundaries do you think he’s pushing in this play?
* * * * *
Appendix One: Charles Gibbon: A Work Worth the Reading. London, 1591.
Philogus: There is old Cleanthes an ancient Gentleman, who is adorned with the affluence of fortune, for great possessions, as well as the excellence of Nature, for good properties. He has among many children but one daughter (yet a sister to every son). This maid is very desirous to marry, and has made her choice of such a one, as is both of a goodly composition of body, and of a godly disposition of mind. Yet as he is proper and well disposed, so he is very poor, insomuch as her father by reason of the baseness of his linage, and bareness of his living, will now allow of her liking, but hath appointed her another, which both by parentage and portion may countervail her calling and his contentment, yet nothing answerable to his daughter’s desire, because for his year he may rather be her father than her husband, which as he cannot be the first, so he is so far from the latter that she will rather be martyred than married to him, now in this case whether is the affection of the child to be preferred before the election of the father. (2-3)
Tychicus: This is as easy to answer as to ask: The Ten Commandments teach children to honor and submit themselves to their parents; therefore if they contract and couple contrary to their satisfaction, they rather rebel than obey them… This is sufficient to resolve you: Children cannot match without their parents’ consent. (5)
Philogus: Alas, you do not consider the innumerable inconvenience that be incident to those parties which be brought together more for profit than love, more for goods than good will, more by constraint than consent, nay more than that…. Is it possible that oxen unequally yoked should draw together?... You shall find that such a husband, is a hell to a tender virgin and that such a marriage is the beginning of all misery, and no doubt he that bestows his daughter no better, shall abridge her grief, by following her to the grave….There is no reason, but he and she that enter into that bond should make their own bargain, because it is they that must abide by it. (6-7)
Tychicus: You still continue your carnal positions, to confirm your opinion, as though the prescript rule of God’s book where to be impugned by the natural reason of man’s brain. If a man may give his goods to whom he will, he may as well bestow his children where he thinks best, for children are the goods of the parents…. You allege it is for good reason they should make their own bargain, because they must abide it; as though parents would seek the prejudice of their own children…. This argues that parents would dispose their children at their pleasure…. It is the property of parents, not to deal forwardly but fatherly with their children, and to bestow them not as they desire, without discretion, but as is most expedient with circumstance. (7-9)
Philogus: We ought indeed to obey our earthly parents, yet we must not dishonor our eternal father, for we are taught by the Apostle Peter “to obey God more than man” (Acts 5.29)…. For, “He that loves father and mother more than me is not worthy of me,” (Mat. 10.37). We ought to fear our natural parents, that have government of our bodies, yet we must be more afraid of our celestial Father, which preserves both body and soul, and is able to cast them into hell fire; whereupon I ground my argument, that if parents will proffer and impose upon their children such a match as tend more to profit than piety, more to content their greedy desire for lucre, than their children’s godly choice for love, as this man hath done to his daughter, neither they nor this maid ought to depend on their parents in this point. (13-14)
Appendix Two: A Midsummer Night's Dream I.i.20-66
Egeus: Happy be Theseus, our renownèd Duke.
Theseus: Thanks, good Egeus: what's the news with thee?
Egeus: Full of vexation come I, with complaint
Against my child, my daughter Hermia.—
Stand forth, Demetrius.—My Noble Lord,
This man hath my consent to marry her.—
Stand forth, Lysander.—And, my gracious Duke,
This man hath bewitched the bosom of my child.
…
With cunning hast thou filched my daughter’s heart,
Turned her obedience, which is due to me,
To stubborn harshness. And, my gracious Duke,
Be it so she will not here before your Grace,
Consent to marry with Demetrius,
I beg the ancient privilege of Athens:
As she is mine, I may dispose of her,
Which shall be either to this gentleman
Or to her death, according to our law,
Immediately provided in that case.
Theseus: What say you Hermia? Be advised fair maid.
To you your Father should be as a god—
One that composed your beauties, yea, and one
To whom you are but as a form in wax
By him imprinted, and within his power
To leave the figure or disfigure it.
Demetrius is a worthy gentleman.
Hermia: So is Lysander.
Theseus: In himself he is;
But in this kind, wanting your father’s voice,
The other must be held the worthier.
Hermia: I would my father looked but with my eyes.
Theseus: Rather your eyes must with his judgment look.
Hermia: I do entreat Your Grace, to pardon me.
I know not by what power I am made bold;
Nor how it may concern my modesty
In such a presence here to plead my thoughts;
But I beseech Your Grace that I may know
The worst that may befall me in this case
If I refuse to wed Demetrius.
Theseus: Either to die the death or to abjure
Forever the society of men.
No comments:
Post a Comment