Setting In A Midsummer Night’s Dream And The Knight’s Tale: The Use Of The Forest Essay, Research Paper

In Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Knight’s Tale and William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, there is an apparent struggle between the world of reason (the world of manmade laws), and the realm of nature, the world outside of civilization. A significant part of A Midsummer Night’s Dream takes place in a forest, outside of Athens, and such is the case for The Knight’s Tale, as well. It is this writer’s belief that Chaucer, as well as Shakespeare, use the setting of a wooded area to illustrate that emotions, such as love, become a destructive force when taken outside of the governance of law and reason.

The forest to which Shakespeare’s Hermia and Helena flee is just outside of Athens. It is here, outside of the rule of Theseus, that the built relationship between Hermia and Helena breaks down. Although the two have been friends since early childhood and had sworn an oath of sisterhood, it does not prevent Hermia from attacking Helena out of jealousy. After Lysander declares his love for Helena, Hermia immediately rebuts with “O me! you juggler! you canker-blossom! You thief of love!” (Act 3, Scene 2). This is spoken, not to Lysander, but to Helena. Hermia reacts with instant jealousy. It does not matter to her at this point that she and Helena have sisters’ vows, sworn long ago, in effect, a law made by both. She forgets everything that has happened up to this point, forgets Athens, in a sense, and attacks Helena both verbally and physically. Hermia threatens Helena with “I am not yet so low, but that my nails can reach unto thine eyes,” (3-2). She is willing to destroy her lifetime friendship with Helena, all in the name of love. This discord between them is confined to the setting of the wooded area. The threat is a statement that Hermia would have never made, had she been in Athens. She would have behaved like a proper Athenian woman, as she does so in the beginning and end of the play while within the city limits.

In this same scene, Shakespeare injects animalistic elements to illustrate his point. When scorned Hermia clutches at her former lover, Lysander insists, “Hang off, thou cat, thou burr: vile thing, let loose; Or I will shake thee from me, like a serpent,” (3-2). In using the words cat and serpent, Shakespeare is suggesting that Hermia has been reduced to an animal, a being without more than instinctual thought and without reason. It also should be noted the choice of animals Shakespeare uses as insult. He chooses the cat and the serpent, both of which have extensive negative connotations. The cat carries the stigma of being a witch’s familiar. Therefore the image of the cat suggests elements of wickedness. The serpent, which would have been duly noted by Shakespeare’s Christian audience, can be seen as a reference to the bible, as in the serpent that tempted Adam and Eve. This suggests the association of evil as well. In his choice of animals, Shakespeare is arguing that without law, without the governmental voice of reason, humans become nothing more than animals, and that without higher thinking, humans lose their ability to distinguish right from wrong, and eventually fall to the wayward side.

In the first scene of the play, Shakespeare explicitly states what becomes of those who do not adhere to law and reason. Hermia asks Theseus what her fate will be if she defies her father, to which he replies “either to die the death, or to abjure for ever the society of men,” (1-1). In effect, Shakespeare is saying that those do not live according to the law choose death, and that without rules, there can be no organized civilization. One could also argue that Shakespeare is saying that love must be expressed within the sphere of reason and law, in institutions that are legally binding such as marriage, or it will result in a destructive way, such as death. It is when the youths step outside the boundaries of civilization, and into the unknown forest, that mishaps and chaotic events occur. It is during this time that Hermia, in a jealous rage, attacks her closest friend. It is here where Lysander scorns his true love. It is also when they return to Athens that order in their lives is restored and the danger dissolved.

Like Shakespeare, Chaucer also uses animalistic elements in his language to explain his point. When Palamon meets up with Arcite in the woods, Chaucer describes the fight that ensues as:

“Thou mightest wene that this Palamoun/ In his fighting were a wood leoun,/ And as a cruel tygre was Arcite;/ as wilde bores gone they to smyte,/ that frothen white as foom for ire wood./ Up to the ancle foghte they in hir blood.” (Line 797-802)

Chaucer compares Palamon to a lion, and Arcite to a tiger, both seen as very bloodthirsty animals. Here Chaucer uses these animals to convey that there is no chivalry left between these two noble men. In their separation from the outside world and civilization, the two are reduced to vulgar, primitive ways. Chaucer also uses the words “frothen white as foom for ire wood.” This implies that the two have lost all reason, all cognitive ability to distinguish right from wrong, and have gone insane. The image of foaming at the mouth is like that of a mad dog, an animal beyond hope, that must be killed.

The issue of the word wood should also be addressed. In Middle English, wood was synonymous with the word mad, which can mean anger, or an imbalance of mental capacity. The whole scene in which Palamoun and Arcite fight one on one in a jealous rage takes place in the woods, away from civilization. Chaucer uses the setting of the forest to denote the fact that Palamoun and Arcite have lost touch with reality, and that if left to their own devices, will destroy each other in the name of love.

It is Theseus who interrupts the bloody battle, and restores the order that he represents. He asks who these two men are “that been so hardy for to fighten here withouten juge or other officere,” (853-4). In these words, Chaucer is acknowledging that what Palamoun and Arcite are doing is against the norm, against social convention. He is effectively saying that even in war, one must adhere to laws and reason, and cannot give in to strictly primitive desires. For with Theseus, the voice of reason, stepping in, both are given a chance to win the hand of Emelye. It is because Theseus is there to play the impartial judge that Palamoun obtains the opportunity in the end to wed Emelye. Palamoun does not win the battle between he and Arcite, and is only able to marry his beloved because of an oath that was sworn, a pact or law made between the men.

Others in Theseus’ company, particularly Ipolita and Emelye, begin to weep for the sorry state that Palamoun and Arcite are in. The women believe “gret pitee was it, as it thoughte hem alle, that ever swich a chaunce sholde falle, for gentil men they were of greet estat, and no thing but for love was this debat,” (893-896). Through them, Chaucer is saying that Palamoun and Arcite no longer have the honor and valor that normally comes with fighting for love. Instead, in reverting to animalistic behavior, they have achieved nothing but pity from others. They are no longer really gentil men, as they are behaving outside of society. They have lost chivalric intent, and instead behave as mad animals.

It is not until Arcite is carried out of the battlefield, and brought to church (society in a sense), that he begins to show signs of the great knight he once was. While Arcite is near death, Chaucer states “nature hath now no dominacioun; and certeinly, ther nature wol nat wirche,” (1900-1901). Basically, Chaucer, by taking his character out of the forest (the metaphor he has created for the chaos and madness of a world without law), he brings him back to the world of reason. Now that nature, or primitive desires, no longer have a hold on Arcite, he is again allowed to act like the noble man that he is. He remembers that he and Palamoun once had a bond as strong as brothers and asks Emelye to “forget nat Palamoun, the genil man,” (1939). This love that Palamoun and Arcite both have for Emelye attains chivalric qualities only when both parties are brought back from the battleground to society again. From this one can discern that Chaucer is implying that had Palamoun and Arcite both courted Emelye in the outside world, none of the tragic events leading up to the marriage would have taken place.

From interpreting what actions take place in a wooded area, it is apparent that both William Shakespeare and Geoffrey Chaucer use the setting as a metaphor to convey a key theme. In the case of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare contains all the mishaps and violence to the forest. This suggests that when beyond the reaches of governance, emotions such as love are reduced to primitive things, which often lead to destruction. Chaucer places his characters specifically in a wooded area, away from law, during their fight to illustrate how “natural” this is, a visceral battle between cousins. In both instances, the authors use a forest to describe the very chaotic events that occur when one is removed from society.