As previously mentioned, the distinctive features of the extract’s language are considered here alongside performance possibilities, as it is argued that the latter are inextricably linked to a specific interpretation of the former. I would propose that the challenge for any performance is to convey the humorousness of language and character, without obscuring the serious themes, which form the subtext of the extract. For it can be argued that the language and action operate on at least two levels. On a superficial level, the extract lends itself to a particularly humorous performance. Emerging through the humour, however, are ideas and themes, which are significant in the context of the play as a whole. The manner in which performance can draw out both the humour and seriousness embedded in the language is considered in detail below. In general terms, however, I would suggest that this can be achieved through an emphasis on the sincerity of the clowns’ intentions, the mischievousness of Puck and the absurdity of Titania’s response to Bottom.
The discussion divides the extract into three sections: the first of these covers lines 80 to 91, concentrating on Flute’s speech as Thisbe; the second covers lines 92 to 105, concentrating on Puck’s speech of lines 94 to 99. The third section considers the remainder of the extract, focusing on the exchange between Bottom and Titania.
On a superficial level, Flute’s speech has a profoundly humorous tone, derived from the patently contradictory images and the irony, with which the language used to describe Bottom, as Pyramus, is laced. Language is hyperbolic, with ‘most’ repeated four times (3.1.80 and 82). Descriptions are effusive, conflicting and present the antithesis of the Bottom known to the audience. He is ‘lily-white of hue’ and yet also ‘radiant’ and ‘Of colour like the red rose’ (3.1.80 and 81). Equally, he is described as a ‘bristly juvenile’ (3.1.82) and, unlikely in the context of Elizabethan England, a ‘lovely Jew’ (3.1.82). So unlikely and internally conflicting are the descriptions that they appear to have been chosen with the principal aim of achieving the abab rhyme scheme. The concluding erroneous reference to ‘Ninny’s tomb’ (3.1.84) has the effect of a punch line, neatly encapsulating Flute’s painful and comical attempt to use language and imagery beyond his intellectual ability. Quince’s subsequent interjection also permits the reiteration of Flute’s description of Bottom as ‘true as truest horse’ (3.1.90) immediately prior to Bottom’s entrance, with an ass’s head, thus heightening the sense of comedy.
Flute’s speech achieves a second level of humour through its parody of the language and behaviour of the courtiers. The ‘lily-white’ and ‘red rose’ images unwittingly mimic Lysander’s earlier description of Hermia, with ‘cheeks so pale’ and ‘roses that do fade so fast’ (1.1.128 and 129). The hyperbole, which characterises Flute’s speech, also replicates the exaggerated effusiveness of the courtiers, such as Hermia’s oaths in Act 1 (1.1.168-178). The comical rehearsal of the tragic story of Pyramus and Thisbe can in turn be seen to parody the attempted flight of Lysander and Hermia from Athens.
I would suggest that the principal challenge for a performance of Flute, as Thisbe, is to convey the immediate comedy inherent in the language, through the jumbled descriptions and deep sense of irony, while effectively parodying the courtiers. Flute performs in earnest (though undoubtedly mocked by the other clowns). In contrasting with the ridiculousness of what he says, this earnestness is fundamental to achieving a level of comedy. It is also fundamental in parodying the courtiers, replicating the earnestness with which they profess their love of each other. An interesting tool to emphasise the parody could be an attempt by Flute to mimic the voice of Hermia or to rehearse in clothing similar to that of Hermia.
Proceeding to lines 92 to 105, it is necessary to consider the features of the language, which Puck uses, how this contrasts with that of the clowns and how Puck’s language, in particular, permits alternative performance possibilities.
Puck’s speech of lines 94 to 99 has a spell-like quality, achieved in part through multiple repetition, such as ‘I’ll’, ‘through’, ‘sometime’ and ‘and’. In conjunction with repetition, there is much use of alliteration, of ‘b’ in line 95 and ‘h’ in lines 96 to 97 and line 99. Conversely, the absence of alliteration in line 98 emphasises the distinctive sound of each word. The language evokes the natural world to illustrate the mischievousness of Puck. References in line 95 to ‘bog’ and brake’ etc. are to natural obstacles and raise a humorous image of Bottom stumbling through the forest. Puck also personifies himself as different animals, which, though not necessarily violent, can pursue and frighten Bottom. The appearance of these animals twice during the speech emphasises their capacity to cause distress. Combined with repetition, alliteration and distinctive language is a strict rhyme scheme of ababcc and a broad (though not complete) adherence to iambic pentameter. There is a distinct contrast between the first four lines of Puck’s speech and the final couplet, however, the former possessing a flowing rhythm while the final couplet has a punch-like, hitting quality to it, through the use of short words and multiple commas.
It can be suggested that the language in Puck’s speech favours a performance emphasising malevolence. This interpretation draws on the alliteration of the hard ‘b’ sound in line 95, the violent animals noises referred to in line 98, such as ‘bark’ and ‘roar’ and the previously mentioned ‘hitting’ nature of the final couplet, particularly the last line, with its alliteration of ‘h’. Puck’s speech can inject a note of darkness into an otherwise humorous scene and enhance the portrayal of his character as malevolent, one who ‘Mislead(s) night wanderers, laughing at their harm’ (2.1.39). While acknowledging Puck’s mischievousness, however, I would de-emphasise hints of malevolence and emphasise, rather, the continuation of the extract’s comical tone. It is significant that Puck is alone on stage as he soliloquises, a moment for him to revel in his mishievousness and his own ability to reinvent himself. The very ridiculousness of Bottom and the disarray into which the clowns are thrown suggests a Puck enjoying himself and the observation of an amusing spectacle.
With the exit of Puck and the other clowns, Bottom remains on stage, as yet unaware of the presence of Titania. As the scene develops and Titania awakes, the language operates on two distinct levels, reflecting both the humour of the encounter and the serious subtext. Superficially, the language humorously reflects the contrasting social position of Bottom and Titania. On a secondary level, however, it parodies hierarchical social structures and specifically the language and behaviour of those characters, which occupy more elevated social positions in both Athens and the world of fairies. Paradoxically, it is perhaps Titania who emerges from the exchange appearing the more ridiculous of the two while Bottom is shown to express some simple truths.
The scene’s humour is achieved through irony and, again, the antithetical nature of descriptions. The two verses of Bottom’s song relate the singing qualities of various birds, the ‘throstle with his note so true, The wren with little quill’ (3.1. 112 – 113). Much comedy can be derived from the contrast between the subject of the song and a Bottom whose singing ability is severely limited and who is further hampered by the ass’s head, which he has acquired. This is enhanced when Titania wakes to suggest that Bottom’s singing is that of an ‘angel’ (3.1.114), an unlikely proposition. Her subsequent effusive outpouring of emotion towards him touches on those characteristics designed to raise laughter. She is ‘enamoured of thy note’ (3.1.122), in spite of his dreadful singing and ‘enthralled to thy shape’ (3.1.123) in spite of his dreadful appearance.
One notable feature of this extract is the marked contrast between the form of speech used by Bottom and that of Titania, reflecting their contrasting social status in their respective worlds. Titania’s speech is in strict iambic pentameter, with elements of rhyme, while that of Bottom is either simple rhyming song or prose. Simultaneously, there is a marked contrast in the complexity of language used. Bottom’s prose is simple, his song more so. He uses the forms ‘I’ and ‘you’. Titania’s language is more complex, with use of the terms ‘thou’ and ‘mine’ and words such as ‘enamoured’ and ‘enthralled’.
As mentioned, beneath the superficial humour of the encounter, lies both a second level of humour and a more serious subtext. The absurdity of Titania’s impassioned speech provides for much humour but also parodies the excessive romantic language of the courtiers. The hyperbole of Titania’s language is reinforced by the insightful, deadpan responses from Bottom, such as in his assertion that she would have ‘little reason’ to love him (3.1.126) and that he is ‘neither’ wise nor beautiful (3.1.132). His reflection on the fact that ‘reason and love keep little company together nowadays’ (3.1.128) has considerable weight both in the context of Titania’s behaviour and the shifting affections of the courtiers. The exchange between Titania and Bottom also lends itself, therefore, to a humorous interpretation. However, while the focus of the humour may initially be Bottom, the challenge in performance is to shift that focus onto Titania, drawing out the ridiculousness of her words while emphasising the sincerity with which Bottom speaks and permitting his moment of reflection to emerge. Though Bottom’s lines may raise laughs for their deadpan delivery, it is important that the laughs be on Titania.
In concluding this discussion, it is suggested that this extract functions on a number of levels in relation to the Dream as a whole. On a basic level, it progresses certain of the play’s plots. It provides for a moment of comedy between scenes dominated by the courtiers but also reflects on those scenes in the manner in which it mocks the behaviour of the courtiers. In this sense, perhaps most significantly, and particularly through the exchange between Bottom and Titania, it inverts traditional hierarchical and social structures, with superficially ‘comic’ characters utilised to position ‘serious’ characters as foci of humour.
Bibliography
Shakespeare, William, ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ in Stephen Greenblatt, Ealter Cohen, Jean E. Howard and Katherine Eisaman Maus, eds., The Norton Shakespeare, W.W. Norton and Company, New York: 1997.
Rixon, Penny ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ in Kiernan Ryan, ed., Shakespeare: Texts and Contexts, Macmillan Press Ltd. in association with the Open University, Basingstoke: 2000.
The text of A Midsummer Night’s Dream used for this discussion is that in Stephen Greenblatt, Ealter Chien, Jean E. Howard and Katherine Eisaman Maus, eds., The Norton Shakespeare, W.W. Norton and Company, New York: 1997, pp. 841-861. The play is referred to as the ‘Dream’ throughout this discussion.
The term used to describe Quince, Bottom, Snout, Snug and Starveling is derived from the stage direction at the beginning of Act 3 Scene 1.
The ‘courtiers’, here, refers to Hermia, Lysander, Demetrius and Helena.
See, for example, Penny Rixon, ‘A Midsummer Night’s Dream’ in Kiernan Ryan, ed., Shakespeare: Texts and Contexts, Macmillan Press Ltd. in association with the Open University, Basingstoke: 2000, p.11.