‘Lovers and madmen have such seething brains, Such shaping fantasies, that apprehend More than cool reason ever comprehends.’ (MSD 4-5) This quote taken from Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream encapsulates that which lies at the very heart of the play; the nature of love. Shakespeare’s exploration of love and reason comes through the differing sets of lovers presented in the play. From the more rational setting of Athens (Theseus and Hippolyta) toward the more irrational woods (Oberon and Titania). Amidst these two contrasting places, exist the four young lovers (Lysander, Demetrius, Helena and Hermia) who straddle both these settings and thus could be a consideration for both reason and love. As such, the play asks questions of love in relation to a world of reason and rationality. Perhaps as a foundation to, or rather alongside A Midsummer Night’s Dream, it is important to look at the philosophical arguments of Plato - particularly in the Phaedrus. Though its principal concern rests with the art of rhetoric, the dialogue between Socrates and Phaedrus also falls on the nature of love along with considerations on the soul and ‘divine madness’. The predominant focus will fall within Socrates first and second speech. This essay seeks to explore this relationship between reason and love, drawing comparisons between Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Plato’s the Phaedrus. Reason and Love in the Phaedrus The Phaedrus can be seen as underpinning Shakespeare’s musings on reason and love, particularly in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and while perhaps superfluous, it would be ill-informed to ignore Plato’s work. In response to Lysias, Socrates first speech tells the story of a boy or youth described as having “very many lovers” (237b). One of these men persuaded the boy that “he was not in love, though he loved the lad no less than others” (237b). The man made a speech to convince the boy to give his favours to the non-lover rather than the lover. The speaker begins by noting the importance of understanding the “true nature of a particular subject"-or else the inquiry will end up in conflict and confusion (237c). In the case of the boy and the non-lover, the speaker states that they must first define love and its effects. Love is a kind of desire. It is understood that “even men who are not in love have a desire for what is beautiful” (237d). Indeed, to distinguish a man who is in love from a man who is not, one must understand the two principles inherent in all men: the “inborn desire for pleasures” and the “acquired judgment that pursues what is best” (237d). When the former is in control, the state is called “outrageousness” (238a). When the latter takes command, the state is called “being in your right mind” (237e). However the desire that is most powerful-the one that has led to this very speech-is the desire to “take pleasure in beauty” (238c), what Socrates also calls “eros” (238c). This first speech from Socrates sets up the conflicting internal nature of reason and love: “they quarrel inside us” (237d). In terms of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, this could be translated through the contrasting settings of Athens and the woods. Both could perhaps be seen in the play as manifestations of reason and love. Athens can be explored through the rational and lawful, earlier referred to as the “being in your right mind”. In a sense we could call this reason over l