Archetypes In A Midsummer Night's Dream

All of literature is littered with symbolic archetypes, from the night to the forest to the hero to the star crossed lovers, and A Midsummer Night’s Dream is no exception. In this piece, as with every other great work of fiction, Shakespeare shapes his characters and the setting to fit into these universally recognized molds. Before analyzing this piece of literature through these archetypal eyeglasses, it is crucial to understand what archetypes are, and why they are used.
An archetype, by definition, is “the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies” (Mirriam-Webster). In other words, an archetype is a perfect example of something. Northrop Frye says that "archetypes are the recurring patterns

of imagery (wastelands or garden), character types (scapegoat or hero), events (rites of passage), stories (monster-slaying), or themes (good versus evil) that provide the structural principals that give literature its unity" (Biral). These definitions, however, leave something to be desired, and since archetypes are crucial to all works of literature, a more in depth understanding is necessary. The term has its roots in ancient Greek. It comes from the root words “archein” and “typos” meaning original/old and pattern/model/type, respectively. Carl Jung, the psychologist who was responsible for the creation of analytical psychology, later applied “archetype” to the human psyche. He is also responsible for defining twelve primary types that symbolize basic human motivations (Golden). Without delving too deep into his work, one can draw some important ideas from it. He believed that these archetypes were stored in what he called the collective unconscious, which everyone has access to. This supports the idea that archetypes are universal; the same archetypes appear in cultures all around the world (Portko). This becomes more clear when looking at literature from around the world because even in two seperate places that weren’t communicating, the same archetypes appear. One example Dr. Portko draws from Jung is the archetype of the hostel brethren, which appears in Egyptian mythology with Seth and Osiris, and also in the bible with Cain and Abel (Portko). Another example of a universal symbolic archetype is the sun rising, which has a deeper emotional meaning than just the beauty of the sun rising in itself. It may symbolize a new beginning, a fresh start, or the end of a darker period. Jung’s theory is that “archetypes represent fundamental human motifs of our experience as we evolved,” which, consequently, means that these archetypes evoke deep emotions (Golden). Although he isn’t necessarily correct about his theory of the origin, the results are what is important: archetypes affect people emotionally. This is why they can be used effectively in literature. Archetypes can be used to make the characters more believable, or to create a setting that is more appropriate, and even adds to, the plot. It wouldn’t be scary to have someone murdered in the daylight, and it wouldn’t be tragic for the villain to die at the hands of the hero. However, if the narrator buries someone alive in an eerie dark underground catacomb (as is the case in Poe’s Cask of Amontillado), or if two star crossed lovers end up committing suicide because they couldn’t be together (Romeo and Juliet/Pyramus and Thisby), one will feel the emotions of the story.
In A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare makes an effective use of such archetypes.

There are “the lovers”: Lysander and Hermia, Demetrius and Helena (there are other lovers, but these lovers are the main focus of the story). This is a comedy, so in the end they all end up with who they belong and live happily ever after as do all archetypal lovers in comedys. Shakespeare dives even more in archetypal depth than that. There are the clowns, or what might be called “the fools”: Quince, Snug, Bottom, Flute, Snout, and Starveling. They are poor in wealth, they are poor actors, and lack a reasonable amount of common sense, which is shown when they feel the need to explain themselves in the play. Any rational person knows that it is just a play and that the actors are not actually experiencing the events they are acting out, but they are "the fools," who are never rational. They decide it is a good idea to make sure the audience knows that it is not real, which is clearly absurd. Even within their group there is the ruler or leader of the fools, Bottom. He even gets his chance at being a more powerful ruler when Titania falls in love with him. He orders around the fairies like servants and is an ass both literally and figuratively, the kind of foolish ass of a ruler that would abuse his servants and subjects. Oberon is “the magician”, who is pulling the strings and basically conducting the whole play from the background. He decides who loves who, and orders his servant, Robin Goodfellow/Puck to conduct business for him. Puck is slightly mischievous, and although he messes up on accident, he doesn’t hesitate to sit back and laugh at the trouble he has caused, which earns him the archetype of “the

Jester.”
A form of archetypal setting is “the forest”, which is always an uncontrolled place in literature. It is a place of beasts and darkness, and it is where nearly the whole play takes place. This forest isn’t particularly dark, but it does hold that unknown and uncontrollable aspect to it. It is a place where there is magic and otherworldly creatures; a place where anything can happen and everything goes. Even the plot is archetypal: “the magic weapon.” Oberon sends Robin Goodfellow to fix all of their problems using the now purple flower (previously white before being shot) that was shot on accident by Cupids arrow. All he has to do is put it on someone's eyelids, and they will be in love with the first person they see. This “magic weapon” holds the solution to all of their problems, but only if used correctly. Also, another form of archetype is the time. When they (Lysaandeer, Hermia, Demetrius, and Helena) wake up in "the morning" it gives the sense of a new beginning, because morning is an archetypal time for a fresh start. A time when the past is left behind and all there is to think about is the future.
Something I have not picked up in other authors works, that I believe Shakespeare did exceptionally well in this play, is placing characters briefly within archetypes that are unfit for them, and while, as an audience, we still know their true selves, they become a completely new character within the story for that brief moment in time. One example being Bottom as he takes on the archetype of the ruler, and a cruel one at that. Even though we know his true identity, it’s easy to forget it and think that he will now be ruler of the fairies until the end of the play. I find it even more intriguing that Shakespeare gives us hints of his ruler qualities, cruel as they may be, when Shakespeare shows him being leader of the fools. Not only hinting that he is a leader, but a poor one, because he is the leader of the fools, and the fools are never to be entrusted with making wise decisions, such as electing a leader. The same thing happens with the lovers. Shakespeare has two versions of love in this play, the requited and the unrequited. When Shakespeare changes around the roles within the group of lovers, switching them between loving and being loved, loving and not being loved, and not loving, but being loved without wanting that love, he is maintaining the archetype of "the lover" for each. The interesting thing is, however, that he is showing us the different forms that the archetype of lover can take on, just as a rose can be a symbol for love, or for the transitoriness of beauty (Mays 1006).
Another archetype that Shakespeare adds into this play, is the archetype of the star-crossed lovers: the lovers that are meant to be, but destined to fail. (They usually end up parishing.) He does this by adding another play within the play, one that portrays the suicides of Pyramus and Thisby because they couldn't be together. They want nothing more than to live happily ever after, but fate has doomed them to separation and unhappiness. This gives a nice contrast to "the lovers" in the real play, who are able to live happily ever after, because it shows how close they were to being "the star-crossed lovers."
It is important to understand archetypes in order to fully understand stories and the unity between all of the different works of literature. It is no coincidence that people are highly affected by the same stories, and even the same parts of those stories. This is due to the archetypal forms that they take on. Nearly everyone is happy to see the lovers living happily ever, and seeing the righteous hero beat the evil villain has a similar effect. Change it up just slightly, however, and have the lovers doomed to separation, or have the villain kill the hero, and the audience will be in tears by the end, if done correctly. That is the power of the archetype. Understanding the different archetypes is essential to drawing connections between the world's literature, and maybe on an even deeper level, we can see the unity of humanity in spite of the many thousands of miles that have kept us separated until recently.