Phallus and the Fantastic: Things to consider in A Midsummer Night’s Dream
Comments(2) One might read through this Shakespeare play and think that the line that best describes it is “[T]he course of true love never did run smooth” (I.i.134), or perhaps a cliche such as love (cupid) is blind, or perhaps simply that this is a bad romance comedy. Unfortunately, the author ruined these thoughts extremely early in the play. It was a small and simple section, but the interpretation for it was a bit troubling (in my own context of course, I’m sure this was the norm at the time). The line is this: “Hippolyta, I wooed thee with my sword,/And won thy love, doing thee injuries” (I.i.16). Yes, of course it can just be taken as Theseus explaining to the audience the start of the play, but I took it as this: a phallic symbol and a display of power.
This might be a bit of a stretch to some, but it’s hard for me to gloss over the fact that in literature, many extensions of power or agency come in the form of a phallic symbol, be it a sword or dagger, gun, pen, etc. It is not even a symbol found solely in one work of Shakespeare. Titus Andronicus had numerous references or symbols to the phallus, whether it be the sword which kills or the staff which tells. Also telling from Titus is the fact that those who did exercise any notion of agency did so with the help of a sword, or staff (the only point in which Lavinia seemed to have any kind of power was when she held a staff). But let’s get back to the play at hand.
Theseus woo’d his fiance with a sword. Hermia and Helena, both “swordless”, do not express agency in that they are not the evokers of their own plot. Titania tries to exercise some power over the fate of the Indian prince, but instead loves an ass. I am going to say that Shakespeare is using gender power relations, but I will leave it to the reader as to how it’s interpreted. I’m only going to say that women’s suffrage was not established in England until 1832.
The other aspect of this play that I found surprising (as if phallus were surprising in any literary form), is the use of magic, forestry, and the fantastic. That is not to say that these themes were never used before or after, but in this play, it was normal. I stress that fact because the more you think about it, the more unique this idea becomes. Yes, mysticism, mythos, and madness were all used before, notably in greek theatre, but I find it to be strange that there are fairies, love potions, and it’s all the same to the mortals. Compare that to say, Frankenstein, when one object outside of the norm perpetuates the entire story. In my experience, it isn’t until postmodernism where you really see the surreal and strange and think nothing of it.
Of course, most of this splendor happens in a forest, and having magic (but also love) happen away from civilization has it’s own implications, and I guess that is a testament to the surviving power of Shakespeare. A Midsummer Night’s Dream gave me three readings: a postmodern reading, a romantic reading, and a phallic (gender) reading.
Note: Antony and Cleopatra’s phallic symbol of the snake is also a symbol of ouroboros, an strong feminine symbol.
Very nice analysis of the bard’s words, though i disagree somewhat on the part of what you are troubling about, in fact, this is what we experienced from kindergarden days, of course we do with different things, maybe even guns, only in Shakespeare’s case, it’s translated into swords, but beneath it, not too much has changed, but all this, i think, is what we call life, no?
I really enjoyed the postmodern implications that you point out a play like A Midsummer Night’s Dream can have. It is very true what you’ve said about the surreal not being considered in a matter of fact way within the play itself. Forests, fairies, potions and other supernatural elements have been one sided symbols for a considerable length of time in literature but being that Shakespeare incorporates them in the critical way he does points to a conversation with older forms (Greek tragedy; Hippolyta’s presence) to inform current conceptions. Many post-modern writers do the same in order to expand on what could be possibly thought about elements such as characters, gender and class. I feel that Shakespeare had a poignant awareness of the many perspectives at play in the theater and worked to realize them throughout the course of this play, using the play within the play, the class/cultural differences between the Athenians, the “rude mechanicals,” the Fairies, and their manipulation of the plot’s events to enlighten the audience a bit.