A Midsummer Night's Dream is a comedy written by William Shakespeare in 1595/96.

It portrays the
events surrounding the marriage of Theseus, the Duke of Athens, to Hippolyta, the former queen of the
Amazons. These include the adventures of four young Athenian lovers and a group of six amateur actors
(the mechanicals) who are controlled and manipulated by the fairies who inhabit the forest in which most
of the play is set. The play is one of Shakespeare's most popular works for the stage and is widely
performed across the world.

Characters

 Theseus—Duke of Athens

 Hippolyta—Queen of the Amazons

 Egeus—father of Hermia

 Hermia—daughter of Egeus, in love with Lysander

 Lysander—in love with Hermia

 Demetrius—suitor to Hermia

 Helena—in love with Demetrius

 Philostrate—Master of the Revels

 Peter Quince—a carpenter

 Nick Bottom—a weaver

 Francis Flute—a bellows-mender

 Tom Snout—a tinker

 Snug—a joiner

 Robin Starveling—a tailor

 Oberon—King of the Fairies

 Titania—Queen of the Fairies

 Robin Goodfellow—a puck

 Peasblossom, Cobweb, Moth, Mustardseed—fairy servants to Titania

 Indian changeling
Plot

The play consists of four interconnecting plots, connected by a celebration of the wedding of
Duke Theseus of Athens and the Amazon queen, Hippolyta, which is set simultaneously in the woodland
and in the realm of Fairyland, under the light of the moon.
The play opens with Hermia, who is in love with Lysander, resistant to her father Egeus' demand that she
wed Demetrius, whom he has arranged for her to marry. Helena meanwhile pines unrequitedly for
Demetrius. Enraged, Egeus invokes an ancient Athenian law before Duke Theseus, whereby a daughter
must marry the suitor chosen by her father, or else face death. Theseus offers her another choice: lifelong
chastity while worshipping the goddess Artemis as a nun.
Peter Quince and his fellow players Nick Bottom, Francis Flute, Robin Starveling, Tom Snout,
and Snug plan to put on a play for the wedding of the Duke and the Queen, "the most lamentable comedy
and most cruel death of Pyramus and Thisbe." Quince reads the names of characters and bestows them on
the players. Nick Bottom, who is playing the main role of Pyramus, is over-enthusiastic and wants to
dominate others by suggesting himself for the characters of Thisbe, the Lion, and Pyramus at the same
time. He would also rather be a tyrant and recites some lines of Ercles. Bottom is told by Quince that he
would do the Lion so terribly as to frighten the duchess and ladies enough for the Duke and Lords to have
the players hanged. Quince ends the meeting with "at the Duke's oak we meet."
In a parallel plot line, Oberon, king of the fairies, and Titania, his queen, have come to the forest outside
Athens. Titania tells Oberon that she plans to stay there until she has attended Theseus and Hippolyta's
wedding. Oberon and Titania are estranged because Titania refuses to give her Indian changeling to
Oberon for use as his "knight" or "henchman," since the child's mother was one of Titania's worshippers.
Oberon seeks to punish Titania's disobedience. He calls upon Robin "Puck" Goodfellow, his "shrewd and
knavish sprite," to help him concoct a magical juice derived from a flower called "love-in-idleness,"
which turns from white to purple when struck by Cupid's arrow. When the concoction is applied to the
eyelids of a sleeping person, that person, upon waking, falls in love with the first living thing he
perceives. He instructs Puck to retrieve the flower with the hope that he might make Titania fall in love
with an animal of the forest and thereby shame her into giving up the little Indian boy. He says, "And ere I
take this charm from off her sight,/As I can take it with another herb,/I'll make her render up her page to
me."
Hermia and Lysander have escaped to the same forest in hopes of eloping. Helena, desperate to reclaim
Demetrius's love, tells Demetrius about the plan and he follows them in hopes of killing Lysander. Helena
continually makes advances towards Demetrius, promising to love him more than Hermia. However, he
rebuffs her with cruel insults against her. Observing this, Oberon orders Puck to spread some of the
magical juice from the flower on the eyelids of the young Athenian man. Instead, Puck mistakes Lysander
for Demetrius, not having actually seen either before, and administers the juice to the sleeping Lysander.
Helena, coming across him, wakes him while attempting to determine whether he is dead or asleep. Upon
this happening, Lysander immediately falls in love with Helena. Oberon sees Demetrius still following
Hermia and is enraged. When Demetrius goes to sleep, Oberon sends Puck to get Helena while he charms
Demetrius' eyes. Upon waking up, he sees Helena. Now, both men are in pursuit of Helena. However, she
is convinced that her two suitors are mocking her, as neither loved her originally. Hermia is at a loss to
see why her lover has abandoned her, and accuses Helena of stealing Lysander away from her. The four
quarrel with each other until Lysander and Demetrius become so enraged that they seek a place to duel to
prove whose love for Helena is the greater. Oberon orders Puck to keep Lysander and Demetrius from
catching up with one another and to remove the charm from Lysander so Lysander can return to love
Hermia, while Demetrius continues to love Helena.
Meanwhile, Quince and his band of six labourers ("rude mechanicals," as they are described by Puck)
have arranged to perform their play about Pyramus and Thisbe for Theseus' wedding and venture into the
forest, near Titania's bower, for their rehearsal. Bottom is spotted by Puck, who (taking his name to be
another word for a jackass) transforms his head into that of a donkey. When Bottom returns for his next
lines, the other workmen run screaming in terror: They claim that they are haunted, much to Bottom's
confusion. Determined to await his friends, he begins to sing to himself. Titania, having received the love-
potion, is awakened by Bottom's singing and immediately falls in love with him. She lavishes him with
the attention of her and her fairies, and while she is in this state of devotion, Oberon takes the changeling.
Having achieved his goals, Oberon releases Titania, orders Puck to remove the donkey's head from
Bottom, and arranges everything so Helena, Hermia, Demetrius and Lysander will all believe they have
been dreaming when they awaken. Puck distracts Lysander and Demetrius from fighting over Helena's
love by mimicking their voices and leading them apart. Eventually, all four find themselves separately
falling asleep in the glade. Once they fall asleep, Puck administers the love potion to Lysander again,
claiming all will be well in the morning.
The fairies then disappear, and Theseus and Hippolyta arrive on the scene, during an early morning hunt.
They wake the lovers and, since Demetrius no longer loves Hermia, Theseus over-rules Egeus's demands
and arranges a group wedding. The lovers decide that the night's events must have been a dream. After
they exit, Bottom awakes, and he too decides that he must have experienced a dream "past the wit of
man."
In Athens, Theseus, Hippolyta and the lovers watch the six workmen perform Pyramus and Thisbe. The
performers are so terrible playing their roles that the guests laugh as if it were meant to be a comedy, and
everyone retires to bed. Afterwards, Oberon, Titania, Puck, and other fairies enter, and bless the house and
its occupants with good fortune. After all the other characters leave, Puck "restores amends" and suggests
that what the audience experienced might just be a dream.
Sources
It is unknown exactly when A Midsummer Night's Dream was written or first performed, but on the basis
of topical references and an allusion to Edmund Spenser's Epithalamion, it is usually dated 1595 or early
1596. Some have theorised that the play might have been written for an aristocratic wedding (for example
that of Elizabeth Carey, Lady Berkeley), while others suggest that it was written for the Queen to
celebrate the feast day of St. John. No concrete evidence exists to support this theory. In any case, it
would have been performed at The Theatre and, later, The Globe. Though it is not a translation or
adaptation of an earlier work, various sources such as Ovid's Metamorphoses and Chaucer's "The Knight's
Tale" served as inspiration. According to John Twyning, the play's plot of four lovers undergoing a trial in
the woods was intended as a "riff" on Der Busant, a Middle High German poem.
According to Dorothea Kehler, the writing period can be placed between 1594 and 1596, which means
that Shakespeare had probably already completed Romeo and Juliet and had yet to start working on The
Merchant of Venice. The play belongs to the early-middle period of the author, when Shakespeare devoted
his attention to the lyricism of his works.
According to De Vere Family lore (which may or may not actually be true), the wedding of Elizabeth De
Vere to William Stanley, Sixth Earl of Derby, on June 26, 1594, at the Court of Greenwich, and occurring
in the presence of Queen Elizabeth, this was the event to occasion Shakespeare's first performance of A
Midsummer Night's Dream
Date and Text
The play was entered into the Register of the Stationers' Company on 8 October 1600 by the bookseller
Thomas Fisher, who published the first quarto edition later that year. A second quarto was printed in 1619
by William Jaggard, as part of his so-called False Folio. The play next appeared in print in the First
Folio of 1623. The title page of Q1 states that the play was "sundry times publickely acted" prior to
1600. The first performance known with certainty occurred at Court on 1 January 1605.
Themes and motifs
Lovers Bliss
Prior to the Christian St. John's Day, in Ancient Greece, marking Midsummer was an event called Adonia.
It was the first festive day (and night) when Adonis was allowed to depart the underworld to spend six
months with his paramour, Aphrodite.* It was considered a time to celebrate the first bliss of new and
reunited lovers. The wedding of Theseus and Hippolyta and the mistaken and waylaid lovers, Titania and
Bottom, even the erstwhile acting troupe, model various aspects (and forms) of love.
Carnivalesque

Both David Wiles of the University of London and Harold Bloom of Yale University have strongly
endorsed the reading of this play under the themes of Carnivalesque, Bacchanalia, and Saturnalia.
[7]
Writing in 1998, David Wiles stated that: "The starting point for my own analysis will be the
proposition that although we encounter A Midsummer Night's Dream as a text, it was historically part of
an aristocratic carnival. It was written for a wedding, and part of the festive structure of the wedding
night. The audience who saw the play in the public theatre in the months that followed became vicarious
participants in an aristocratic festival from which they were physically excluded. My purpose will be to
demonstrate how closely the play is integrated with a historically specific upper-class celebration."
Love

David Bevington argues that the play represents the dark side of love. He writes that the fairies make light
of love by mistaking the lovers and by applying a love potion to Titania's eyes, forcing her to fall in love
with an ass.[9] In the forest, both couples are beset by problems. Hermia and Lysander are both met by
Puck, who provides some comic relief in the play by confounding the four lovers in the forest. However,
the play also alludes to serious themes. At the end of the play, Hippolyta and Theseus, happily married,
watch the play about the unfortunate lovers, Pyramus and Thisbe, and are able to enjoy and laugh at it.
[10]
Helena and Demetrius are both oblivious to the dark side of their love, totally unaware of what may
have come of the events in the forest.

Problem with time

There is a dispute over the scenario of the play as it is cited at first by Theseus that "four happy days bring
in another moon."[11] The wood episode then takes place at a night of no moon, but Lysander asserts that
there will be so much light in the very night they will escape that dew on the grass will be shining like
liquid pearls.[12] Also, in the next scene, Quince states that they will rehearse in moonlight, [13] which
creates a real confusion. It is possible that the Moon set during the night allowing Lysander to escape in
the moonlight and for the actors to rehearse, then for the wood episode to occur without moonlight.
Theseus's statement can also be interpreted to mean "four days until the next month." Another possibility
is that, since each month there are roughly four consecutive nights that the moon is not seen due to its
closeness to the sun in the sky (the two nights before the moment of new moon, followed by the two
following it), it may in this fashion indicate a liminal "dark of the moon" period full of magical
possibilities. This is further supported by Hippolyta's opening lines exclaiming "And then the moon, like
to a silver bow New-bent in heaven, shall behold the night of our solemnities."; the thin crescent-shaped
moon being the hallmark of the new moon's return to the skies each month. The play also intertwines the
Midsummer Eve of the title with May Day, furthering the idea of a confusion of time and the seasons.
This is evidenced by Theseus commenting on some slumbering youths, that they "observe The rite of
May."
Loss of individual identity[edit]

Maurice Hunt, Chair of the English Department at Baylor University, writes of the blurring of the
identities of fantasy and reality in the play that make possible "that pleasing, narcotic dreaminess
associated with the fairies of the play." By emphasising this theme even in the setting of the play,
Shakespeare prepares the reader's mind to accept the fantastic reality of the fairy world and its
happenings. This also seems to be the axis around which the plot conflicts in the play occur. Hunt
suggests that it is the breaking down of individual identities that leads to the central conflict in the story. It
is the brawl between Oberon and Titania, based on a lack of recognition for the other in the relationship,
that drives the rest of the drama in the story and makes it dangerous for any of the other lovers to come
together due to the disturbance of Nature caused by a fairy dispute. Similarly, this failure to identify and
to distinguish is what leads Puck to mistake one set of lovers for another in the forest, placing the flower's
juice on Lysander's eyes instead of Demetrius'.
Victor Kiernan, a Marxist scholar and historian, writes that it is for the greater sake of love that this loss
of identity takes place and that individual characters are made to suffer accordingly: "It was the more
extravagant cult of love that struck sensible people as irrational, and likely to have dubious effects on its
acolytes." He believes that identities in the play are not so much lost as they are blended together to create
a type of haze through which distinction becomes nearly impossible. It is driven by a desire for new and
more practical ties between characters as a means of coping with the strange world within the forest, even
in relationships as diverse and seemingly unrealistic as the brief love between Titania and Bottom: "It was
the tidal force of this social need that lent energy to relationships." [17]
The aesthetics scholar David Marshall draws out this theme even further by noting that the loss of identity
reaches its fullness in the description of the mechanicals and their assumption of other identities. In
describing the occupations of the acting troupe, he writes "Two construct or put together, two mend and
repair, one weaves and one sews. All join together what is apart or mend what has been rent, broken, or
sundered."[18] In Marshall's opinion, this loss of individual identity not only blurs specificities, it creates
new identities found in community, which Marshall points out may lead to some understanding of
Shakespeare's opinions on love and marriage. Further, the mechanicals understand this theme as they take
on their individual parts for a corporate performance of Pyramus and Thisbe. Marshall remarks that "To
be an actor is to double and divide oneself, to discover oneself in two parts: both oneself and not oneself,
both the part and not the part."[18] He claims that the mechanicals understand this and that each character,
particularly among the lovers, has a sense of laying down individual identity for the greater benefit of the
group or pairing. It seems that a desire to lose one's individuality and find identity in the love of another is
what quietly moves the events of A Midsummer Night's Dream. As the primary sense of motivation, this
desire is reflected even in the scenery depictions and the story's overall mood.
In his essay "Preposterous Pleasures: Queer Theories and A Midsummer Night's Dream," Douglas E.
Green explores possible interpretations of alternative sexuality that he finds within the text of the play, in
juxtaposition to the proscribed social mores of the culture at the time the play was written. He writes that
his essay "does not (seek to) rewrite A Midsummer Night's Dream as a gay play but rather explores some
of its 'homoerotic significations' ... moments of 'queer' disruption and eruption in this Shakespearean
comedy."[19] Green states that he does not consider Shakespeare to have been a "sexual radical," but that
the play represented a "topsy-turvy world" or "temporary holiday" that mediates or negotiates the
"discontents of civilisation," which while resolved neatly in the story's conclusion, do not resolve so
neatly in real life.[20] Green writes that the "sodomitical elements," "homoeroticism," "lesbianism," and
even "compulsory heterosexuality" in the story must be considered in the context of the "culture of early
modern England" as a commentary on the "aesthetic rigidities of comic form and political ideologies of
the prevailing order."[20] Aspects of ambiguous sexuality and gender conflict in the story are also
addressed in essays by Shirley Garner and William W.E. Slights albeit all the characters are played by
males.[21][22]
Feminism[edit]

Male dominance is one thematic element found in A Midsummer Night's Dream. In A Midsummer Night's
Dream, Lysander and Hermia escape into the woods for a night where they do not fall under the laws of
Theseus or Egeus. Upon their arrival in Athens, the couples are married. Marriage is seen as the ultimate
social achievement for women while men can go on to do many other great things and gain social
recognition.[23] In The Imperial Votaress, Louis Montrose draws attention to male and female gender roles
and norms present in the comedy in connection with Elizabethan culture. In reference to the triple
wedding, he says, "The festive conclusion in A Midsummer Night's Dreamdepends upon the success of a
process by which the feminine pride and power manifested in Amazon warriors, possessive mothers,
unruly wives, and wilful daughters are brought under the control of lords and husbands." [24] He says that
the consummation of marriage is how power over a woman changes hands from father to husband. A
connection between flowers and sexuality is drawn. The juice employed by Oberon can be seen as
symbolising menstrual blood as well as the sexual blood shed by virgins. While blood as a result of
menstruation is representative of a woman's power, blood as a result of a first sexual encounter represents
man's power over women.[25]
There are points in the play, however, when there is an absence of patriarchal control. In his book Power
on Display, Leonard Tennenhouse says the problem in A Midsummer Night's Dream is the problem of
"authority gone archaic".[26] The Athenian law requiring a daughter to die if she does not do her father's
will is outdated. Tennenhouse contrasts the patriarchal rule of Theseus in Athens with that of Oberon in
the carnivalistic Faerie world. The disorder in the land of the fairies completely opposes the world of
Athens. He states that during times of carnival and festival, male power is broken down. For example,
what happens to the four lovers in the woods as well as Bottom's dream represents chaos that contrasts
with Theseus' political order. However, Theseus does not punish the lovers for their disobedience.
According to Tennenhouse, by forgiving the lovers, he has made a distinction between the law of the
patriarch (Egeus) and that of the monarch (Theseus), creating two different voices of authority. This
distinction can be compared to the time of Elizabeth I, in which monarchs were seen as having two
bodies: the body natural and the body politic. Elizabeth's succession itself represented both the voice of a
patriarch as well as the voice of a monarch: (1) her father's will which stated that the crown should pass to
her and (2) the fact that she was the daughter of a king.

Criticism and interpretation

Critical history

17th century

Dorothea Kehler has attempted to trace the criticism of the work through the centuries. The earliest such
piece of criticism was a 1662 entry in the diary of Samuel Pepys. He found the play to be "the most
insipid ridiculous play that ever I saw in my life." He did, however, admit that it had "some good dancing
and some handsome women, which was all my pleasure." The next critic to write on the play was John
Dryden, writing in 1677. He was preoccupied with the question of whether fairies should be depicted in
theatrical plays, since they did not exist. He concluded that poets should be allowed to depict things
which do not exist but derive from popular belief. And fairies are of this sort, as are pigmies and the
extraordinary effects of magick. Based on this reasoning, Dryden defended the merits of three fantasy
plays: A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Tempest, and Ben Jonson's Masque of Witches.
18th century

Charles Gildon in the early 18th century recommended this play for its beautiful reflections, descriptions,
similes, and topics. Gildon thought that Shakespeare drew inspiration from the works of Ovid and Virgil,
and that he could read them in the original Latin and not in later translations. James Halliwell-Phillipps,
writing in the 1840s, found that there were many inconsistencies in the play, but considered it the most
beautiful poetical drama ever written. Henry Austin Clapp, writing in 1885, commented on the
inconsistency of the time depicted in the play, as it should take place in four days and nights and seems to
last less than two, and felt that this added to the unrealistic quality of the play.
Horace Howard Furness, defending the play in 1895, felt that the apparent inconsistency did not detract
from the play's quality. In 1971, Neil Taylor argued that there was a double time-scheme in the play,
making it seem to last a minimum of four nights but to also be timeless. In 1977, Anne Paolucci argued
that the play lasts five days.
William Duff, writing in the 1770s, also recommended this play. He felt the depiction of the supernatural
was among Shakespeare's strengths, not weaknesses. He especially praised the poetry and wit of the
fairies, and the quality of the verse involved. His contemporary Francis Gentleman, an admirer of
Shakespeare, was much less appreciative of this play. He felt that the poetry, the characterisation, and the
originality of the play were its strengths, but that its major weaknesses were a "puerile" (childishly silly
and immature) plot and that it consists of an odd mixture of incidents. The connection of the incidents to
each other seemed rather forced to Gentleman.
Edmond Malone, a Shakespearean scholar and critic of the late 18th century, found another supposed flaw
in this particular play, its lack of a proper decorum. He found that the "more exalted characters" (the
aristocrats of Athens) are subservient to the interests of those beneath them. In other words, the lower-
class characters play larger roles than their betters and overshadow them. He found this to be a grave error
of the writer. Malone thought that this play had to be an early and immature work of Shakespeare and, by
implication, that an older writer would know better. Malone's main argument seems to derive from
the classism of his era. He assumes that the aristocrats had to receive more attention in the narrative and
to be more important, more distinguished, and better than the lower class.
19th century

According to Kehler, significant 19th-century criticism began in 1808 with August Wilhelm Schlegel.
Schlegel perceived unity in the multiple plot lines. He noted that the donkey's head is not a random
transformation, but reflects Bottom's true nature. He identified the tale of Pyramus and Thisbe as
a burlesque of the Athenian lovers. In 1817, William Hazlitt found the play to be better as a written work
than a staged production. He found the work to be "a delightful fiction" but when staged, it is reduced to a
dull pantomime. He concluded that poetry and the stage do not fit together. Kehler finds the comment to
be more of an indication of the quality of the theatrical productions available to Hazlitt, rather than a true
indication of the play's supposed unsuitability to the stage. She notes that prior to the 1840s, all stage
productions of this play were adaptations unfaithful to the original text.
In 1811–1812, Samuel Taylor Coleridge made two points of criticism about this play. The first was that
the entire play should be seen as a dream. Second, that Helena is guilty of "ungrateful treachery" to
Hermia. He thought that this was a reflection of the lack of principlesin women, who are more likely to
follow their own passions and inclinations than men. Women, in his view, feel less abhorrence for
moral evil, though they are concerned with its outward consequences. Coleridge was probably the earliest
critic to introduce genderissues to the analysis of this play. Kehler dismisses his views on Helena as
indications of Coleridge's own misogyny, rather than genuine reflections of Helena's morality
In 1837, William Maginn produced essays on the play. He turned his attention to Theseus' speech about
"the lunatic, the lover, and the poet"and to Hippolyta's response to it. He regarded Theseus as the voice of
Shakespeare himself and the speech as a call for imaginative audiences. He also viewed Bottom as a
lucky man on whom Fortune showered favours beyond measure. He was particularly amused by the way
Bottom reacts to the love of the fairy queen: completely unfazed. Maginn argued that "Theseus would
have bent in reverent awe before Titania. Bottom treats her as carelessly as if she were the wench of the
next-door tapster." Finally, Maginn thought that Oberon should not be blamed for Titania's humiliation,
which is the result of an accident. He viewed Oberon as angry with the "caprices"of his queen, but unable
to anticipate that her charmed affections would be reserved for a weaver with a donkey's head.
In 1839, the philosopher Hermann Ulrici wrote that the play and its depiction of human life reflected the
views of Platonism. In his view, Shakespeare implied that human life is nothing but a dream, suggesting
influence from Plato and his followers who thought human reality is deprived of all genuine existence.
Ulrici noted the way Theseus and Hippolyta behave here, like ordinary people. He agreed with Malone
that this did not fit their stations in life, but viewed this behaviour as an indication of parody about class
differences.[32]
In 1849, Charles Knight also wrote about the play and its apparent lack of proper social stratification. He
thought that this play indicated Shakespeare's maturity as a playwright, and that its "Thesean
harmony" reflects proper decorum of character. He also viewed Bottom as the best-drawn character, with
his self-confidence, authority, and self-love. He argued that Bottom stands as a representative of the
whole human race. Like Hazlitt he felt that the work is best appreciated when read as a text, rather than
acted on stage. He found the writing to be "subtle and ethereal", and standing above literary criticism and
its reductive reasoning.
Also in 1849, Georg Gottfried Gervinus wrote extensively about the play. He denied the theory that this
play should be seen as a dream. He argued that it should be seen as an ethical construct and an allegory.
He thought that it was an allegorical depiction of the errors of sensual love, which is likened to a dream.
In his view, Hermia lacks in filial obedience and acts as if devoid of conscience when she runs away with
Lysander. Lysander is also guilty for disobeying and mocking his prospective father-in-law. Pyramus and
Thisbe also lack in filial obedience, since they "woo by moonlight" behind their parents' backs. The
fairies, in his view, should be seen as "personified dream gods". They represent the caprices of superficial
love, and they lack in intellect, feeling, and ethics.
Gervinus also wrote on where the fairyland of the play is located. Not in Attica, but in the Indies. His
views on the Indies seem to Kehler to be influenced by Orientalism. He speaks of the Indies as scented
with the aroma of flowers and as the place where mortals live in the state of a half-dream. Gervinus
denies and devalues the loyalty of Titania to her friend. He views this supposed friendship as not
grounded in spiritual association. Titania merely "delight in her beauty, her 'swimming gait,' and her
powers of imitation".[34] Gervinus further views Titania as an immoral character for not trying to reconcile
with her husband. In her resentment, Titania seeks separation from him, which Gervinus blames her for. [34]
Gervinus wrote with elitist disdain about the mechanicals of the play and their acting aspirations. He
described them as homely creatures with "hard hands and thick heads". They are, in his view, ignorant
men who compose and act in plays merely for financial reward. They are not real artists. Gervinus
reserves his praise and respect only for Theseus, who he thinks represents the intellectual man. Like
several of his predecessors, Gervinus thought that this work should be read as a text and not acted on
stage.
In 1863, Charles Cowden Clarke also wrote on this play. Kehler notes he was the husband of famous
Shakespearean scholar Mary Cowden Clarke. Charles was more appreciative of the lower-class
mechanicals of the play. He commented favourably on their individualisation and their collective richness
of character. He thought that Bottom was conceited but good natured, and shows a considerable store of
imagination in his interaction with the representatives of the fairy world. He also argued that Bottom's
conceit was a quality inseparable from his secondary profession, that of an actor.
In 1872, Henry N. Hudson, an American clergyman and editor of Shakespeare, also wrote comments on
this play. Kehler pays little attention to his writings, as they were largely derivative of previous works.
She notes, however, that Hudson too believed that the play should be viewed as a dream. He cited the
lightness of the characterisation as supporting of his view. In 1881, Edward Dowdenargued that Theseus
and his reflections on art are central to the play. He also argued that Theseus was one of the "heroic men
of action" so central to Shakespeare's theatrical works.
Henry A. Clapp (1885) and Horace Howard Furness (1895) were both more concerned with the problem
of the play's duration, though they held opposing views. In 1887, Denton Jacques Snider argued that the
play should be read as a dialectic, either between understanding and imagination or between prose and
poetry. He also viewed the play as representing three phases or movements. The first is the Real World of
the play, which represents reason. The second is the Fairy World, an ideal world which represents
imagination and the supernatural. The third is their representation in art, where the action is self-
reflective. Snider viewed Titania and her caprice as solely to blame for her marital strife with Oberon. She
therefore deserves punishment, and Oberon is a dutiful husband who provides her with one. For failing to
live in peace with Oberon and her kind, Titania is sentenced to fall in love with a human. And this human,
unlike Oberon is a "horrid brute".
Towards the end of the 19th century, Georg Brandes (1895–6) and Frederick S. Boas (1896) were the last
major additions to A Midsummer Night's Dream criticism. Brandes' approach to anticipates
later psychological readings, seeing Oberon's magic as symbolic and "typifying the sorcery of the erotic
imagination".[38] Brandes felt that in the play, Shakespeare looks inward at the "domain of the
unconscious".[38] Boas eschews the play as ethical treatise or psychological study and instead takes a more
historicist and literal approach. To Boas the play is, despite its fantastical and exotic trappings,
"essentially English and Elizabethan." He sees Theseus as a Tudor noble; Helena a mere plot device to
"concentrate the four lovers on a single spot"; and the Pyramus and Thisbe play-within-the-play a parody
of a prominent topos of contemporary plays. Summing up their contributions, Kehler writes: "This is
recognizably modern criticism."
20th century

The 20th century brought new insights into the play. In 1961, Elizabeth Sewell argued that Shakespeare
aligns himself not with the aristocrats of the play, but with Bottom and the artisans. It is their task to
produce a wedding entertainment, precisely the purpose of the writer on working in this play. [39] Also in
1961, Frank Kermode wrote on the themes of the play and their literary sources. He counted among them
fantasy, blind love, and divine love. He traced these themes to the works of Macrobius, Apuleius,
and Giordano Bruno. Bottom also briefly alludes to a passage from the First Epistle to the
Corinthians by Paul the Apostle, dealing with divine love.
In 1964, R.W. Dent argued against theories that the exemplary model of love in the play is the rational
love of Theseus and Hippolyta. He argued that in this work, love is inexplicable. It is the offspring of
imagination, not reason. However the exemplary love of the play is one of an imagination controlled and
restrained, and avoids the excesses of "dotage".Genuine love is contrasted with the unrequited love (and
dotage) of Demetrius for Hermia, and with the supposed love (and dotage) of Titania for an unworthy
object.
Dent also denied the rationality and wisdom typically attributed to Theseus. He reminded his readers that
this is the character of Theseus from Greek mythology, a creation himself of "antique fable".[39] Theseus'
views on art are far from rational or wise. He can't tell the difference between an actual play and its
interlude. The interlude of the play's acting troop is less about the art and more of an expression of the
mechanicals' distrust of their own audience. They fear the audience reactions will be either excessive or
inadequate, and say so on stage. Theseus fails to get the message.
Also in 1964, Jan Kott offered his own views on the play. He viewed as main themes of the play violence
and "unrepressed animalistic sexuality". Both Lysander and Demetrius are, in his view, verbally brutal
lovers, their love interests are exchangeable and objectified. The changeling that Oberon desires is his
new "sexual toy".[41] The aristocrats of the play, both mortal and immortal, are promiscuous. As for the
Athenian lovers following their night in the forest, they are ashamed to talk about it because that night
liberated them from themselves and social norms, and allowed them to reveal their real selves. Kott's
views were controversial and contemporary critics wrote, either in favour of or against Kott's views, but
few ignored them.
In 1967, John A. Allen theorised that Bottom is a symbol of the animalistic aspect of humanity. He also
thought Bottom was redeemed through the maternal tenderness of Titania, which allowed him to
understand the love and self-sacrifice of Pyramus and Thisbe. In 1968, Stephen Fender offered his own
views on the play. He emphasised the "terrifying power" of the fairies and argued that they control the
play's events. They are the most powerful figures featured, not Theseus as often thought. He also
emphasised the ethically ambivalent characters of the play. Finally, Fender noted a layer of complexity in
the play. Theseus, Hippolyta, and Bottom have contradictory reactions to the events of the night, and each
has partly valid reasons for their reactions, implying that the puzzles offered to the play's audience can
have no singular answer or meaning.
In 1969, Michael Taylor argued that previous critics offered a too cheerful view of what the play depicts.
He emphasised the less pleasant aspects of the otherwise appealing fairies and the nastiness of the mortal
Demetrius prior to his enchantment. He argued that the overall themes are the often painful aspects of
love and the pettiness of people, which here include the fairies.
In 1970, R.A. Zimbardo viewed the play as full of symbols. The Moon and its phases alluded to in the
play, in his view, stand for permanence in mutability. The play uses the principle of discordia concors in
several of its key scenes. Theseus and Hippolyta represent marriage and, symbolically, the reconciliation
of the natural seasons or the phases of time. Hippolyta's story arc is that she must submit to Theseus and
become a matron. Titania has to give up her motherly obsession with the changeling boy and passes
through a symbolic death, and Oberon has to once again woo and win his wife. Kehler notes that
Zimbardo took for granted the female subordination within the obligatory marriage, social views that
were already challenged in the 1960s.
In 1971, James L. Calderwood offered a new view on the role of Oberon. He viewed the king as
specialising in the arts of illusion. Oberon, in his view, is the interior dramatist of the play, orchestrating
events. He is responsible for the play's happy ending, when he influences Theseus to overrule Egeus and
allow the lovers to marry. Oberon and Theseus bring harmony out of discord. He also suggested that the
lovers' identities, which are blurred and lost in the forest, recall the unstable identities of the actors who
constantly change roles. In fact the failure of the artisans' play is based on their chief flaw as actors: they
can not lose their own identities to even temporarily replace them with those of their fictional roles. [44]
Also in 1971, Andrew D. Weiner argued that the play's actual theme is unity. The poet's imagination
creates unity by giving form to diverse elements, and the writer is addressing the spectator's own
imagination which also creates and perceives unity. Weiner connected this unity to the concept of
uniformity, and in turn viewed this as Shakespeare's allusion to the "eternal truths"of Platonism and
Christianity.
Also writing in 1971, Hugh M. Richmond offered an entirely new view of the play's love story lines. He
argued that what passes for love in this play is actually a self-destructiveexpression of passion. He argued
that the play's significant characters are all affected by passion and by a sadomasochistic type of sexuality.
This passion prevents the lovers from genuinely communicating with each other. At the same time it
protects them from the disenchantment with the love interest that communication inevitably brings. The
exception to the rule is Bottom, who is chiefly devoted to himself. His own egotism protects him from
feeling passion for anyone else. Richmond also noted that there are parallels between the tale of Pyramus
and Thisbe, featured in this play, and that of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
In 1972, Ralph Berry argued that Shakespeare was chiefly concerned with epistemology in this play. The
lovers declare illusion to be reality, the actors declare reality to be illusion. The play ultimately reconciles
the seemingly opposing views and vindicates imagination. Also in 1972, Thomas McFarland argued that
the play is dominated by a mood of happiness and that it is one of the happiest literary creations ever
produced. The mood is so lovely that the audience never feels fear or worry about the fate of the
characters.[46]
In 1974, Marjorie Garber argued that metamorphosis is both the major subject of the play and the model
of its structure. She noted that in this play, the entry in the woods is a dream-like change in perception, a
change which affects both the characters and the audience. Dreams here take priority over reason, and are
truer than the reality they seek to interpret and transform. Also in 1974, Alexander Leggatt offered his
own reading of the play. He was certain that there are grimmer elements in the play, but they are
overlooked because the audience focuses on the story of the sympathetic young lovers. He viewed the
characters as separated into four groups which interact in various ways. Among the four, the fairies stand
as the most sophisticated and unconstrained. The contrasts between the interacting groups produce the
play's comic perspective.
In 1975, Ronald F. Miller expresses his view that the play is a study in the epistemology of imagination.
He focused on the role of the fairies, who have a mysterious aura of evanescence and ambiguity. Also in
1975, David Bevington offered his own reading of the play. He in part refuted the ideas of Jan Kott
concerning the sexuality of Oberon and the fairies. He pointed that Oberon may be bisexual and his desire
for the changeling boy may be sexual in nature, as Kott suggested. But there is little textual evidence to
support this, as the writer left ambiguous clues concerning the idea of love among the fairies. He
concluded that therefore their love life is "unknowable and incomprehensible". According to Bevington,
the main theme of the play is the conflict between sexual desire and rational restraint, an essential tension
reflected throughout the play. It is the tension between the dark and benevolent sides of love, which are
reconciled in the end.
In 1979, M. E. Lamb suggested that the play may have borrowed an aspect of the ancient myth of
Theseus: the Athenian's entry into the Labyrinth of the Minotaur. The woods of the play serve as a
metaphorical labyrinth, and for Elizabethans the woods were often an allegory of sexual sin. The lovers in
the woods conquer irrational passion and find their way back. Bottom with his animal head becomes a
comical version of the Minotaur. Bottom also becomes Ariadne's thread which guides the lovers. In
having the new Minotaur rescue rather than threaten the lovers, the classical myth is comically inverted.
Theseus himself is the bridegroom of the play who has left the labyrinth and promiscuity behind, having
conquered his passion. The artisans may stand in for the master craftsman of the myth, and builder of the
Labyrinth, Daedalus. Even Theseus' best known speech in the play, which connects the poet with the
lunatic and the lover may be another metaphor of the lover. It is a challenge for the poet to confront the
irrationality he shares with lovers and lunatics, accepting the risks of entering the labyrinth. [48]
Also in 1979, Harold F. Brooks agreed that the main theme of the play, its very heart, is desire and its
culmination in marriage. All other subjects are of lesser importance, including that of imagination and that
of appearance and reality. In 1980, Florence Falk offered a view of the play based on theories of cultural
anthropology. She argued that the play is about traditional rites of passage, which trigger development
within the individual and society. Theseus has detached himself from imagination and rules Athens
harshly. The lovers flee from the structure of his society to the communitas of the woods. The woods
serve here as the communitas, a temporary aggregate for persons whose asocial desires require
accommodation to preserve the health of society. This is the rite of passage where the asocial can be
contained. Falk identified this communitas with the woods, with the unconscious, with the dream space.
She argued that the lovers experience release into self-knowledge and then return to the renewed Athens.
This is "societas", the resolution of the dialectic between the dualism of communitas and structure.[49]
Also in 1980, Christian critic R. Chris Hassel, Jr. offered a Christian view of the play. The experience of
the lovers and that of Bottom (as expressed in his awakening speech) teach them "a new humility, a
healthy sense of folly". They realise that there are things that are true despite the fact that they can not be
seen or understood. They just learned a lesson of faith. Hassel also thought that Theseus' speech on the
lunatic, the lover, and the poet is an applause to imagination. But it is also a laughing rejection of futile
attempts to perceive, categorise, or express it.
Some of the interpretations of the play have been based on psychology and its diverse theories. In 1972,
Alex Aronson argued that Theseus represents the conscious mind and Puck represents the unconscious
mind. Puck, in this view, is a guise of the unconscious as a trickster, while remaining subservient to
Oberon. Aronson thought that the play explores unauthorised desire and linked it to the concept
of fertility. He viewed the donkey and the trees as fertility symbols. The lovers' sexual desires are
symbolised in their forest encounters. In 1973, Melvin Goldstein argued that the lovers can not simply
return to Athens and wed. First, they have to pass through stages of madness (multiple disguises), and
discover their "authentic sexual selves". In 1979, Norman N. Holland applied psychoanalytic literary
criticism to the play. He interpreted the dream of Hermia as if it was a real dream. In his view, the dream
uncovers the phases of Hermia's sexual development. Her search for options is her defence mechanism.
She both desires Lysander and wants to retain her virginity.
In 1981, Mordecai Marcus argued for a new meaning of Eros (Love) and Thanatos (Death) in this play. In
his view, Shakespeare suggests that love requires the risk of death. Love achieves force and direction
from the interweaving of the life impulse with the deathward-release of sexual tension. He also viewed
the play as suggesting that the healing force of love is connected to the acceptance of death, and vice
versa.
In 1987, Jan Lawson Hinely argued that this play has a therapeutic value. Shakespeare in many ways
explores the sexual fears of the characters, releases them, and transforms them. And the happy ending is
the reestablishment of social harmony. Patriarchy itself is also challenged and transformed, as the men
offer their women a loving equality, one founded on respect and trust. She even viewed Titania's loving
acceptance of the donkey-headed Bottom as a metaphor for basic trust. This trust is what enables the
warring and uncertain lovers to achieve their sexual maturity. In 1988, Allen Dunn argued that the play is
an exploration of the characters' fears and desires, and that its structure is based on a series of sexual
clashes.
In 1991, Barbara Freedman argued that the play justifies the ideological formation of absolute monarchy,
and makes visible for examination the maintenance process of hegemonic order.