The Play-within-the-Play in

A Midsummer Night’s Dream and

Hamlet by William Shakespeare
BA Thesis English Language and Culture, Utrecht University

Daniek Marinus [5868572]

Dr. P.J.C.M. Franssen
March 2020
 Marinus, Daniek
1

Abstract
This thesis deals with the phenomenon of the play-within-the-play in A Midsummer Night’s

Dream and Hamlet by Shakespeare. It takes on the discussion of where ‘meaning’ in the text

resides by looking at the play-within-the-play. The focus of the thesis is on the way in which

the relation between imagination and reality is created in the play-within-the-play and its

relation to the play as a whole. The historical context of both plays have been explored and

taken into account when looking at the meaning of the play-within-the-play.

In A Midsummer Night’s Dream the play-within-the-play mirrors the play as a whole,

both symbolic and literally. The play deals with the irrationality of love and its madness. It

also addresses the fine line between imagination and reality. This relates to meaning as it

addresses the idea about human destiny. The question arises whether or not there is a force

greater than people who alters lives as has happened in the play. Hamlet’s play-within-the-

play also mirrors the main plot of the death of Hamlet’s father. Claudius’ response to the play-

within-the-play is interpreted by Hamlet as a proof of Claudius’ guilt. However, there are

multiple other reasons why Claudius responds to the play as he does. The play-within-the-

play could be seen as an insult to Claudius’ wife who used to be the wife of the previous king

but has soon remarried, another reason could be that in the play-within-the-play the nephew

has become the murderer of the king which could mean that Hamlet has plans to kill Claudius.

The play-within-the-play illustrates the importance of a good understanding of the different

perspectives of the characters which arguably brings about their motives. The play-within-the-

play provokes the tragedy of the plot as a whole which illustrates the possible meaning of the

play.

The thesis first explores the historical context of both plays as well as the emergence

of the term ‘metatheatricality’. Afterwards it gives a close-reading of both play-within-the-

 Marinus, Daniek
2

plays in relation to the play as a whole as well as the historical context and preparations of the

play-within-the-play.

Table of contents

Abstract 1

Introduction 2

Chapter 1 – Historical context 7

1.1 Theatre and The King’s Men 7

1.2 Metatheatre 9

Chapter 2 – A Midsummer Night’s Dream 11

2.1 The play-within-the-play in context 12

2.2 Preparations for the play-within-the-play 12

2.3 Metatheatricality 14

2.3.1. The play-within-the-play as a mirror 15

2.3.2. A symbolic perspective 16

2.3.3. The imagination of Love 16

2.3.4. Sight 18

Conclusion 19

Chapter 3 – Hamlet 20

3.1. Preparations for the play-within-the-play 20

3.2. Metatheatricality 22

Conclusion 25

Conclusion 26

Works cited 29
 Marinus, Daniek
3

Introduction

When reading Shakespeare one might wonder why it is that Shakespeare’s plays are still

popular in current society. The plays, though written hundreds of years ago, are still being

performed and studied by many actors and scholars. A reason for this could be that some of

the themes within the plays have been given meaning repeatedly. The themes are recycled in

meaning in different times and ages. Scholars among others, use “meaning” as a way to

research Shakespeare’s plays. What is the meaning of Shakespeare? Even more specific, what

is the meaning of for example Hamlet’s interruption during The Murder of Gonzago?

(Hawkes 2) How does the historical context influence a play’s meaning, as it does in King

Lear? (133). R.W. Dent argues that meaning is universal, whereas Terence Hawkes and

Robert Crosman argue that meaning has been given repeatedly. Hawkes claims that we use

plays to generate meaning; “Shakespeare doesn’t mean: we mean by Shakespeare” (3). He

argues that contemporary scholars cannot know how a play was given meaning in the time it

was written, each age will thus attribute its own meaning to the plays. As I take a historicist

approach, Hawkes’ theory is to a large extent at odds with mine. Crosman argues that even

though meaning is not universal, there is arguably one common factor in all meaning

attributed to the plays, which is a better understanding of human destiny (X). Thus, we as

readers can learn something about ourselves while reading or seeing Shakespeare’s plays. One

way in which this meaning is created is in Shakespeare’s use of the play-within-the-play,

which will be the focus of this thesis. Cohen provides an analysis using this approach when

looking at Hamlet. He argues that “[Shakespeare] enables us to see ourselves, for the shock of

a moment, from the outside; we see ourselves both as the subject of the play’s outcome and as
 Marinus, Daniek
4

the object of its most searching questions” (245). In other words, the play shows something of

human destiny.

Shakespeare used the phenomenon of the play-within-the-play in some of his plays. In

literature this is called ‘mise en abyme’; this literary device relates to the ‘Chinese box’, “that

often suggests an infinite regress (…) an endless succession of internal duplications” (Baldick

211-212). In Shakespeare’s plays, it is used in the frame of an actual performance, actors

performing a play within the main play, as is the case in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. It

could also be more indirect: in this case characters act when they are drunk or when they

satirically mock someone. In this thesis I am going to look at two of Shakespeare’s plays that

contain a play-within-the-play. Scholars often refer to this as metatheatricality which is the

term that I will be using as well. Metatheatricality can be used as a framework in a play; it can

add a new layer of depth to the story and is able to clarify underlying structures and themes.

Nellhaus argues that previous approaches to metatheatricality mainly focussed on explaining

the use and presence of metatheatricality, but failed to look at its social and historical

emergence (3). Therefore, my research will start with the historical emergence of

metatheatricality. I will then look at the metatheatricality in two plays by Shakespeare. The

first play analysed will be Hamlet, one of Shakespeare’s tragedies and secondly, the romantic

comedy A Midsummer Night’s Dream is discussed. Not only will the use of metatheatricality

be discussed, but also the preparations of the play-within-the-play and the response of other

characters to it will be taken into account. The question that arises is whether the use of

metatheatricality reveals some of the possible meaning of the text concerning the play as a

whole and perhaps even broader about human destiny. Metatheatricality could be used to

comment on the society in which it is written, for example on society’s stance towards

dramatists and playwrights. It can also be used to emphasise certain themes. To get a better

understanding of the plays-within-the-plays of Shakespeare one must not only analyse the text
 Marinus, Daniek
5

itself but also take into account the historical context in which the plays were written and

performed. The main question explored will, therefore, be how the play-within-the-play is

used as a commentary on themes such as humanity and human destiny as well as a

commentary on the play as a whole.

As mentioned before, this thesis revolves around two plays by Shakespeare. In the first

chapter, the historicist approach will be used to look at society’s stance towards theatre and

playwrights as well as the theory of metatheatricality and the historical forms in which

metatheatricality manifested itself in Shakespeare’s time. In the following chapters, both plays

will be thoroughly analysed using close reading. The focus will be on the play-within-the-

play; to see what the text itself suggests concerning the themes and significance of the play-

within-the-play. The preparations of play-within-the-play will also be taken into account.

Afterwards, the relation of the play-within-the-play in the broader framework of the play as a

whole will be analysed. The evidence found in this analysis will be used to look at the

possible meaning of the play-within-the-play and its significance. I expect to find a relation

between the play-within-the-play and the themes of the play as a whole. I also expect to find a

relation between the specific themes and the historical context. In Hamlet, the themes that

relate the play-within-the-play to the play as a whole may be those of revenge and power. In

relation to the historical context and society’s stance towards theatre, I also want to explore

the scene about the boy actors, which takes place when the actors are preparing the play-

within-the-play. A Midsummer Night’s Dream deals with the idea of how theatre could

function in society and comments on the stupidity of humanity. The play creates its own

world of theatre which seems to propose an alternative way in which theatre could function.

As there are too many plays that have a play-within-the-play to research in this thesis I

decided to choose Hamlet and A Midsummer Night’s Dream as they belong to different

genres. It is of interest to see whether or not the play-within-the-plays do serve a similar

 Marinus, Daniek
6

purpose or whether this differs. Still, there are more plays that would suit this thesis such as

The Tempest and Love’s Labour’s Lost, which could be researched in the future.

My starting point with both plays and the use of metatheatricality is the box within the

box theory. This means that the audience within the play is watching a play, but at the same

time, we, as an audience, are also looking at a play. In the same way, it could be argued that

we are merely actors in another play that has an audience as well. This perspective will be my

starting point for my analysis of the significance of metatheatricality in Hamlet and A

Midsummer Night’s Dream by Shakespeare.

 Marinus, Daniek
7

Chapter 1
Historical Context

1.1 Theatre and The King’s Men

Shakespeare and his company performed most of their plays in the Globe, which was built in

1598. It was one of the first theatres where players were given a permanent stage to perform

(Montrose 19). This meant that the company no longer needed to tour around the country but

could permanently stay in London in their own theatre. Ten years after the Globe was built,

the company also got possession of the Blackfriars playhouse. The company therefore owned

two venues; one outdoors, the Globe, arguably for performances in summer, and an indoor

theatre, Blackfriars, to perform during winter (Egan 3). Still acting was “an emergent cultural

form” which had been the case even more so a couple of decades before (Montrose 20). On

the 16th of May 1559, a proclamation was issued that prohibited plays which dealt with

religion and policy. Playwrights and plays were seen as a “seedbed for dissent and sedition”

(24). The people who wanted to abolish theatre were divided into two main groups; the

extremist Puritans and those who saw theatre as a threat to society. According to the latter

group, among others the City Fathers, plays would encourage civil riots (Evans 3). The

Puritans also opposed the use of boy actors to play the female characters in a play. According

to Deuteronomy 22:5 a man should not put on a woman’s appearance. In their opinion it

would offend God when theatre continued the use of boy actors for female roles (4). Even

though these groups wanted to abolish theatre, both according to their own beliefs, they never

achieved it. Englishmen simply found too much pleasure in seeing the plays, especially with

support from the Court, which was on the side of the theatres most of the time. The only time
 Marinus, Daniek
8

when the Puritans were able to close the theatres was a century later, when theatres were shut

down for eighteen years from 1642 onwards.

The people who disliked theatre could not stop the theatre companies from performing

their plays. One reason for this was that the actors and playwrights worked in a professional

collaborative endeavour, yet at the same time were under royal protection (Egan 4). To

perform as a company within London, the actors were given financial support by the Court.

The company Shakespeare belonged to was named The Lord Chamberlain’s Men, until James

I became king of England, who was king of Scotland before, and became the company’s

patron in 1603. The company changed names and became known as The King’s Men. Not

only Shakespeare was of great importance to the company as he was the main playwright,

equally important to the company was James Burbage (Gurr 5). Burbage was a Londoner and

had a lot of experience in the management of playhouses. He thought of theatre as an activity

that could fully function in indoor theatres in the future, which would mean that companies no

longer had to tour around the country but could stay in London. Burbage had bought the

Blackfriars for this purpose (Chambers 156). And thus The King’s Men became one of the

first companies that operated mostly in London with an occasionally tour for example when

the plague gave the authorities a reason to shut down the theatres.

Theatre in Shakespeare’s time was under a lot of pressure. As mentioned before; it was

an emerging form of culture and became more and more popular. Even though there was a lot

of opposition to theatre and plays, Shakespeare’s company managed to establish themselves

in London despite of this. With the help of the royalty, King James I, as well as James

Burbage who provided the company with means to help their performances, Shakespeare was

given the possibility to become a permanent playwright at the company. In some plays by

Shakespeare there is a relation to be found of the tension between theatre and society. The
 Marinus, Daniek
9

ways in which this emerges in Hamlet and A Midsummer Night’s Dream will be further

explored in the next two chapters.

1.2 Metatheatre

Metatheatre as a term was introduced by Lionel Abel in the early seventies (Rosenmeyer 87).

His description of metatheatre contained more than just the play-within-the-play. He argued

that in metatheatre characters are aware of being on a stage, either in a play-within-a-play or

in the awareness of actors playing a character. The actors take on the role of the playwright

when improvising (88). In Abel’s opinion, the play-within-the-play was merely “a scheme

rather than a form” (88). Whereas Abel’s focus was not only on the play-within-the-play,

many critics that responded to his book emphasised the importance of the play-within-the-

play and the consequence of it; an increasing discourse on playmaking and self-consciousness

(89). Rosenmeyer argues that the play-within-the-play can mirror and reflect; it shows the

meaning of the play as a whole. Metatheatre is thus, according to Rosenmeyer, the “outward

transference” of the meaning created by the play-within-the-play (99). There is also a relation

between the function of the play-within-the-play to the play as a whole and the audience in its

turn watching the play. This can be compared to Chinese boxes, suggesting “an infinite

regress (…) an endless succession of internal duplications” (Baldick 211-212). This idea is

further explored as the box-within-the-box theory, meaning that the audience within the play

is watching a play, but at the same time, we, as an audience, are also looking at a play. It

could therefore be argued that we, in our turn, are merely actors in another play that has an

audience as well. This brings a tension to the relation between fiction and reality. The play-

within-the-play functions as a mirror to the play as a whole, but the play-within-the-play also

mirrors something of ‘the box’ outside of the play: society. According to Nellhaus the play-

within-the-play “leads to a social definition of performance and demonstrates that

 Marinus, Daniek
10

metatheatricality emerges out of an interaction between the structure of theatrical performance

and larger social forces” (3). Thus, metatheatricality is the binding force between the

theatrical performance and the world outside of the box, society.

Metatheatre in its current meaning did not yet exist in Shakespeare’s time. However,

Abel’s interpretation of metatheatre is partly based on Shakespeare’s plays. Arguably, the

theory established long after Shakespeare is still applicable to his plays. Abel used

metatheatre to distinguish a difference between tragedy and other plays; “without tragedy, of

which we may be incapable, there is no philosophic alternative to the two concepts by which I

[Abel] have defined the metaplay: the world is a stage, life is a dream” (Abel as quoted by

Rosenmeyer 87). As the plays-within-the-play in Shakespeare’s plays are self-conscious and

often represent the outer world, Abel argued that most of Shakespeare’s plays were

metatheatre (Fly 125). Shakespeare was arguably one of the first playwrights that erased the

boundaries between plays and reality, thus making the play a mirror of society and reality.

Aristotle had already suggested that poetry presented an imitation, thus functioned as a mirror

of reality. However, most modern theoreticians would deny such a direct relationship, and

suggest that art reflects the author’s interpretation of reality. Arguably, Shakespeare could be

seen as the precursor of what would be known as metatheatre even though it is not as

straightforward as it seems. In the next chapters I will look at the different ways this manifests

itself in Hamlet and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

 Marinus, Daniek
11

Chapter two
A Midsummer Night’s Dream

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is set in multiple worlds, among others, the world of the fairies.

At the end of the play Robin argues that everything the audience has just experienced was

merely a dream. This emphasises the idea of the fine line between reality and dream. Stephen

Greenblatt explores this arguing that the play seems to emphasise the difference between

“walking and sleep, men and women, aristocrats and commoners, humans and animals,

mortals and fairies” (1037). However, the play shows how these differences fade when the

story evolves. The different worlds start to interact with each other. This applies to the

mechanicals, as well as to the plot of their lamentable comedy, the play-within-the-play.

These levels in their own way comment on the other worlds; the world of the fairies and the

world of the newlyweds. This will be explored further in the chapter.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream contains a play-within-the-play performed by the

Mechanicals. The Mechanicals are a group of craftsman from Athens, who are about to

perform a play for Theseus and Hyppolita, a soon to be married couple. Ronda Arab argues

that craftsmen in Renaissance drama were often used as a comic relief (13). They are usually

not characters to be looked up to, but rather, looked down upon, which is shown in the play by

the response of the young lovers and Theseus and Hippolyta towards the mechanicals’

performance.

The play-within-the-play is called: “the most lamentable comedy and most cruel death

of Pyramus and Thisbe” (Shakespeare 2.1.10-11). The plot contains many similarities with

Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare. The audience, Theseus, Hippolyta and the four lovers,
 Marinus, Daniek
12

watch the play and ridicule it. Instead of a tragedy, like Romeo and Juliet, the play turns into a

comedy because of the terrible acting of the Mechanicals. The on-stage audience, however, do

not seem to realise the parallels with their own lives. The literal and symbolic mirroring of the

play-within-the-play and the play as a whole will be further explored in the paragraph about

metatheatricality.

2.1 The play-within-the-play in context

A Midsummer Night’s Dream makes multiple references to theatre and how it was approached

at the time. Philostrate parallels the Master of Revels, as he chooses which performance he

wants to see at court and decides to shortlist the Mechanicals. In the same way England had a

Master of Revels who made decisions as to which plays and which theatre companies would

perform before the Royal court. This means that most of the plays chosen by the Master of

Revels were approved before being acted. The play would only be censored if there was

anything in it which was deemed offensive. Theseus would, then, parallel the King or Queen.

The play-within-the-play also refers to the context of theatre as the actors only get the lines

they are supposed to recite in their performance which was common in Shakespeare’s time

(Shakespeare 1.286-90). The play-within-the-play becomes a chaotic play and instead of a

tragedy, it thus becomes a lamentable comedy. The play-within-the-play arguably works as a

comic version of theatre at the time.

2.2 Preparations for the play-within-the-play

There are multiple scenes in the play where the Mechanicals are practising their lines which

already shows something of the character of the players. One example of this is the first time
 Marinus, Daniek
13

the actors meet to divide their roles. In this scene Quince reads out which Mechanical will

play which character in their play (Shakespeare 1.2). Nick Bottom gets the role of Pyramus,

but he wants more; he suggests that he should also play Thisbe and the Lion. In the time it

was quite common for actors to play more characters within a play. This was usually done as

David Grote describes it: “to double other significant roles to bring up the actor’s total line

count” (16). This still happens today, arguably, with a different intention, as it could be used

as a statement to show similarities and links between characters that would otherwise go

unnoticed. Bottom’s suggestion however is close to impossible as the characters, Thisbe and

Pyramus, are interacting with each other on stage, even though there is a wall between them.

Bottom’s suggestion however raises another question: what is the reason that he wants to play

multiple roles? Arguably, Bottom wants to play all parts because he wants to be in control of

the course of the play they will perform. This will be even clearer a few lines later, when

Quince has kept him from playing all roles. Bottom starts to recite lines from Ercles

[Hercules] as a response. Bottom says: “I could play Ercles rarely, or a part to tear a cat in”

(1.2.23). Bottom decides to reference Hercules, maybe because Hercules is famous for his

strength and the ability to conquer all adventures, just as Bottom, arguably, sees this play as

an adventure for him to conquer. However, even though Bottom wants to play all characters,

Quince still decides differently. So, after having decided on who plays who, Quince ends the

meeting and the actors will meet each other again later at the Duke’s oak. The fact that

Bottom wants to increase his power over others says something about his character and

perhaps also has a symbolic meaning. Possibly Bottom represents the urge of people to keep

in control of life, in Bottom’s case of the play. He is the one who wants to have it all in

control, but he cannot as one will see later in the play. Shortly after the meeting of the

mechanicals, Bottom’s head will be turned into an ass’s head, because Robin wants to punish

him for his foolish and over-confident behaviour. Bottom’s ass’s head is an example of how
 Marinus, Daniek
14

the characters in the play are not in control, but are controlled themselves. The more Bottom

tries to control the course of life, the more he is worked upon and thus altered.

In comparison to the actors in The Murder of Gonzago, from Hamlet the Mechanicals

have individual names and characters. The Mechanicals are thus more rounded characters

compared to the flat characters of the actors in Hamlet. Arguably the names of the

Mechanicals relate to their craft or profession. For example Peter Quince, which could derive

from “quines” or “quoins” which arguably relates to his profession; a carpenter. Similarly, the

other mechanicals have names that seem to correspond to their professions such as Francis

Flute who is a bellow-mender. The fact that the Mechanicals have names makes them more

rounded characters. As mentioned before, in the time it was also common for actors to only

receive the lines belonging to your character and the line before yours. When the mechanicals

have divided the roles, Quince distributes “strips of paper among them”; their individual lines

(Shakespeare 1.2.86-87). Another reference to plays and theatre at the time is the cross

dressing. Flute has to play Thisbe, a woman. His response to this is: “Nay faith: let not me

play a woman: I have a beard coming” (1.2.40-41). As female actors were not allowed to

perform, all characters had to be played by men or young boys. And thus Flute, even though

he has a beard coming, has to play a woman. All these elements of the mechanicals’

rehearsals and preparations refer to the theatre at the time. Shakespeare does not appear to

make any distinction between Ancient Greece, the nominal setting of the play, and his own

time. In conclusion, the preparations of the play are important to take into account because

they add depth to the mechanicals and transform the characters from flat characters to more

rounded characters who mirror the idea of the play as a whole.

2.3 Metatheatricality
 Marinus, Daniek
15

The preparations for the play-within-the-play relate to the play-within-the-play as a whole.

This includes the foolishness of the Mechanicals which foreshadows how the play-within-the-

play will be performed and perceived. Instead of a tragedy, the play-within-the-play shifts

towards comedy, as will be confirmed by the audience’s response to the performance later. In

the same way, this is the case for the play as a whole; there are moments where the play tends

to lead towards tragedy, for example when Hermia thinks Lysander has been killed; however,

instead of stabbing herself to death, which would mirror the play-within-the-play, the two

lovers reunite. Fisher argues that a tragedy deals with a question, or more so a problem. In the

tragedy, Fisher says, the problem becomes a dilemma which has no possible solution, and

thus a catastrophe is bound to happen. In a comedy, however, the solution to the dilemma is

accepted and thus becomes the ending of the play (307). The play-within-the-play is a tragedy

where no solution is acceptable so both, Pyramus and Thisbe, die. In the play as a whole the

elements that could lead to a tragedy are solved by an acceptable ending, making A

Midsummer Night’s Dream a comedy. The Mechanicals emphasise this by the play-within-

the-play.

The play-within-the-play is used as a mirror to the play in general; it also serves in a

symbolic manner to the audience in general. The play-within-the-play explores the idea of the

imagination of love and its irrationality. The mechanicals themselves illustrate another idea

which has to do with senses: sight. This will be illustrated further in the chapter. In this way

the play-within-the-play relates the different worlds to each other.

2.3.1 The play-within-the-play as a mirror

A Midsummer Night’s Dream’s play-within-the-play is also often seen as a mirror to the play

in general, arguably more so than in other plays by Shakespeare that contain a play-within-

the-play. The events happening in the play-within-the-play are thus similar, either in storyline
 Marinus, Daniek
16

or symbolically, to the main play. The relationship of Pyramus and Thisbe is similar to that of

Hermia and Lysander. Both the couples run off to the woods. They try to escape the fate that

awaits them when the world finds out about their relationship. Paul N. Siegel argues that “the

play-within-the-play might be said to be a presentation in little of A Midsummer Night’s

Dream as it would be seen through a distorting medium” (142). Bottom illustrates this when

saying: “the course of true love never did run smooth” (Shakespeare, 1.1.134). This is true for

Hermia and Lysander as well for Pyramus and Thisbe. Both relationships are disapproved of

by their parents. Another illustration of the mirroring of the play-within-the-play in the play as

a whole is the idea of losing or having lost love to death. Pyramus thinks Thisbe has been

killed by a lion, and in the same way Hermia thinks Lysander has been murdered (3.2.66-73).

As Siegel puts it, it seems that the play-within-the-play mirrors “the comedy of errors” (Siegel

564).

2.3.2 A symbolic perspective

As mentioned before, there is also a symbolic perspective to the play-within-the-play. David

Marshall wrote an article on exchanging visions and writes about the metaphor of the wall in

the play-within-the-play: “Separating the lovers but also providing a medium of

communication, binding them in a union in partition (…) The wall acts as a visual metaphor”

(564). The wall, even though seen as ridiculous by the newlyweds, actually symbolises the

invisible wall confronting them with the madness of love. The young lovers do not realise

their madness of love; they do not realise or do not want to accept that their love was altered.

Just as the wall divides Thisbe from Pyramus, there is an invisible wall that divides the young

lovers, and arguably Theseus and Hippolyta as well, from seeing the truth about love; its

madness. In other words, it symbolises the obstacle to love, again; as Bottom puts it: ‘the
 Marinus, Daniek
17

course of true love never did run smooth” (Shakespeare, 1.1.134). Love is irrational is the

message that seems to be conveyed by the play-within-the-play.

2.3.3 The imagination of love

The play-within-the-play also reminds the newlyweds of the imagination of love (Dent 124).

They are facing the idea of a God altering their lives, the possibility of a force working upon

them. The play-within-the-play seems to suggest that the love that is experienced during the

play as a whole is irrational as both, Thisbe and Pyramus respond irrational to the wall that

divides them and ultimately results in their tragedy, even though this is not received in this

way because of the horrible acting of the mechanicals. The mechanicals ask the audience,

meaning the young lovers, Theseus and Hippolyta, as well as the audience watching the play,

to believe in the play. To believe in the play relates not only to irrational love, but also to the

willing suspension of disbelief. These themes are thus connected. For the time being the

actors want us to believe that everything the young lovers, and the audience in general, have

seen is true; in the same way there is the need to believe in love in all its forms; its madness

and its irrationality as explored in the play and in the play-within-the-play. However, the

mechanicals do continuously remind the audience that it is all our imagination, for example

when Snout explains that he plays a wall, clearly stating that this is not reality (Shakespeare

5.1.155). The mechanicals, in their foolishness, think that their imitation of reality will be

taken for reality. Another example is the lion and the idea of the lion scaring the ladies,

therefore the actor has to explain that he is not a real lion (3.1.25-31). Theseus says to

Hippolyta that when we imagine something to be real, it will become real to us (5.1.207-211).

Bottom is enchanted by the fairies when he gets an ass’s head, but he wakes up not

remembering whether or not it was a dream. Bottom does not realise that he was worked

upon, he believes it was all a dream. In the same way the play-within-the-play mirrors the
 Marinus, Daniek
18

idea of irrationality and believing that there is a force working upon us. In other words, as

Siegel describes it, the play-within-the-play suggests that the play “while only reflecting life,

may be a kind of enchanted mirror displaying unseen truths” (Siegel 143). The play suggests

that we, just like the characters in the play, might be worked upon. The play arguably

concludes with the idea that perhaps something else is in charge of our lives, something

bigger than us. It is up to us whether we believe or not.

2.3.4 Sight

The idea of seeing that there is something that has controlled the characters and perhaps even

controls us, has everything to do with sight. There is total confusion of who is the true love of

the characters and what the real love object of the lovers is. As just mentioned, this is

expressed by the metaphor of sight. It is a blind cupid who alters love interests (Shakespeare

1.1.234-251). and it is Robin who drops the fluid on the eyes to make the lovers fall in love

with the first person they see. Eyes and sight are here important elements in the creation of

confusion. As the original love interests of the lovers have been altered, total confusion is

created. However, arguably, the love for the lovers’ new love interests is not less real to them

as they do not realise that they have been worked upon. This element of total confusion about

senses is mirrored in the play-within-the-play which also suggests that the on-stage audience

do not have clear sight, but are actually living in the dark. For example when Bottom says:

“To spy an I can hear my Thisbe’s face?”, he confuses the senses (Shakespeare 5.1.190-191).

At the same time, it could be argued that for the young lovers, Theseus and Hippolyta the

play-within-the-play creates more clear-sightedness. They become aware of what causes the

confusion of the characters in the play-within-the-play (Dewhurst, Shepherd 38). Their own

blindness, however, is yet to be noticed.

As mentioned in the first paragraph, there are different levels and worlds in the play

who start to interact with each other. This applies to the level of the mechanicals as well as to
 Marinus, Daniek
19

the plot of their lamentable comedy. These worlds comment on the other worlds, which has

been illustrated using the world of the young lovers and Theseus and Hippolyta and the

mechanicals. The lamentably comedy, as mentioned before, mirrors the story of the lovers

and thus comments on the story of the young lovers. The mechanicals themselves illustrate

the idea of the senses, mostly sight, and the idea of being worked upon. Bottom is an example

of how striving for control will be of no use when a force is working upon you, as is seen in

the interaction of the fairies with Bottom; Bottom wants to have control of the play and thus

of the other mechanicals, and Robin punishes him for this by turning his head into an ass’s

head.

Conclusion

The play by the mechanicals can be seen as a mirror to the play as a whole. Not only does it

contain literal similarities with the characters of the play in general, but it also serves a

symbolic purpose. The play-within-the-play challenges the audience with the imagination,

madness and irrationality of love. This brings to light the idea that not only the audience

watching the play-within-the-play are influenced in their love but that we, as an audience, are

also perhaps worked upon or altered. It is up to us to believe in a force that is greater than us,

or not. We must decide whether what is shown in A Midsummer Night’s Dream was indeed

just a dream or whether there is more reality to it after all.

 Marinus, Daniek
20

Chapter three
Hamlet

Hamlet, one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays is according to Greenblatt designed to

provoke “bafflement” (1751). This bafflement is created by the play itself, but perhaps even

more so by the play-within-the-play. The play-within-the-play as well as its preparations

relate to the main themes of the play as a whole: indecisiveness and revenge. The play-within-

the-play arguably mirrors the main plot of the play as a whole. Hamlet uses the play-within-

the-play by rewriting it to suit his plan for exposing his uncle’s guilt. Firstly the preparations

for the play-within-the-play will be discussed. Three situations are of importance during these

scenes: first of all the scene with the “little eyases” (Shakespeare 2.2.339), secondly the scene

where Hamlet is instructing one of the actors to insert an extra speech in the play (2.2.524-

528) and at last the Hecuba speech (2.2.455-484) together with Hamlet’s response to it in his

soliloquy (2.2.533-590). After the preparations the play-within-the-play itself will be

discussed. This touches upon the main theme of revenge. It also shows the importance of

perception and the ambiguity of Hamlet’s interpretation of Claudius stopping the play versus

Claudius’ possible reasoning.

 Marinus, Daniek
21

3.1 Preparations for the play-within-the-play

The first situation which is of importance to the play-within-the-play takes place in the second

act, scene two, when a group of travelling actors have to leave the city. They tell Hamlet that

there is too much rivalry with a group of “little eyases” (2.2.339), meaning boy actors who

performed in companies, not boy actors playing female roles. Boy actors were generally boys

whose voices were not mature yet. The boys used to sing in choirs for the church but grew out

of this. As the boys were good singers and thus usually good with texts, they were used as

actors and formed a strong competition for other acting companies. Especially in court, the

companies could feel the competition, losing performances and roles to boy actors. In 1600

there was a new demand for boy actors, especially in the Blackfriars Theatre which hosted

many performances. The travelling actors in Hamlet name these boy actors as rivals; arguably

the play criticises the proceedings of the use of boy actor companies.

The second scene in which the preparations for the play-within-the-play are seen is

when Hamlet instructs the actors to change the play. When the actors and Polonius are ready

to leave he stops the First Player and asks him: “Dost thou hear me, old friend, can you play

The Murder of Gonzago?” (2.2.520-522). The player responds that he is able to and that he is

also able to insert the lines Hamlet will give him. In this way Hamlet will use the play-within-

the-play by having it rewritten. By inserting the speech in the play-within-the-play he wants to

get his proof that Claudius is guilty. At the same time it is a way of procrastinating the action

of his revenge. The fact that actors perform a play of revenge, gives Hamlet the time to

procrastinate the action of his own revenge. Instead of getting revenge in reality, he thus takes

revenge within the play-within-the-play. All of this is the result of the inserted lines of Hamlet

when preparing the play-within-the-play.

 Marinus, Daniek
22

Another important element are the two speeches given at the end of act two. Hamlet

has asked Player I to give a speech about the terror of Hecuba. Hecuba was a figure in the

Greek mythology. She experienced how her husband was brutally murdered by Pyrrhus

during the Sack of Troy during the Trojan war. The actor puts emotion into his lines while

performing the story to Polonius and Hamlet. In the end the actor even has tears in his eyes

(2.2.506-507). It is at this moment that Polonius stops him and says he has performed well

enough. Hamlet later on recalls this performance and contemplates how the actor can have

such an empathy for the story. This scene also seems to put forth a case for dramatic art. It

emphasises its importance as it can move spectators even though it is fictional. Hamlet

afterwards looks at himself and contemplates his own feelings of passion and emotions:

What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba.

That he should weep for her? What would he do,

Had he the motive and the cue for passion

That I have? He would drown the stage with tears,

And cleave the general ear with horrid speech. (2.2.543-547).

In comparison to the actor, Hamlet argues that he is inadequate in expressing his emotions.

Even though Hamlet has much more reason to experience such emotions. In this sense Hamlet

is frustrated about his own indecisiveness (2.2.551, 2.2.561), which is a recurring theme

within the play as a whole. The preparation of the play-within-the-play where the actor

performs the story of Hecuba and Hamlet’s frustration thus mirrors the theme that is present

in the play as a whole: indecisiveness.

 Marinus, Daniek
23

3.2 Metatheatricality

The play-within-the-play takes place in act three and is called The Murder of Gonzago or The

Mousetrap. The play-within-the-play is about a king who is murdered; the villain poisons the

king by pouring the poison in the king’s ear, just as Hamlet’s father has been murdered. By

performing a similar murder on stage as the murder of Hamlet’s father, Hamlet wants to prove

that Claudius is guilty. Hamlet’s theory is that when Claudius watches the play he will reveal

by his emotions that he is guilty: “I have heard that guilty creatures sitting at a play have by

the very cunning of the scene been struck so to the soul that presently they have proclaim’d

their malefactions” (2.2.573-577). Thus, when Claudius has stopped the play, Hamlet is

affirmed in his suspicions. One might wonder whether Hamlet’s conviction of Claudius’ guilt

is right, as Claudius has his own reasons to stop the play. First of all one must not forget that

the play-within-the-play was rewritten, which has made the murderer of the king his nephew.

In Claudius’ eyes this could mean that Hamlet has plans to kill him as is suggested by the

play. Hamlet interprets the reaction of Claudius as a verdict of his guilt without considering

Claudius’ interpretation. The second reason why Claudius could stop the play and walk away

is because the play-within-the-play is also about the wife of the king who promises to never

marry again. Hamlet’s mother has soon remarried after her husband was murdered, so the

play-within-the-play also relates to her. As Claudius is now Gertrude’s husband he could be

offended because of this insinuation. Thus, if the play-within-the-play is seen through the eyes

of Claudius, there are plausible reasons for him to stop the play, whereas Hamlet only sees

Claudius’ response as proof for his own accusations. The play-within-the-play illustrates how

important it is to see a play from different perspectives to get a better understanding of the

character’s motifs and actions. Arguably, it is Horatio in the play who understands this as he

and Hamlet were supposed to observe Claudius’ reaction and discuss this afterwards. They
 Marinus, Daniek
24

were supposed to compare their notes made on Claudius but instead of discussing those,

Hamlet is too fixated on his own perception and interpretation of what has happened during

the play-within-the-play (3.2.260-280). Hamlet is positive on what he has seen and what this

means; Horatio, however, only agrees with what he has seen without giving an interpretation

of this. Hamlet asks Horatio if he has “perceive[d]” the reaction of Claudius when the poison

was poured. Horatio only responds with “I did very well note that” (3.2.280-281). It seems

that Horatio agrees at what he has seen, without arguing what this means; he thus neither

confirms nor denies Claudius’ guilt. Zak argues that “Both of them were all talk and no follow

through, displaying no ‘native [that is, ‘healthy’; Zak’s note] hue of resolution’” (7). Hamlet

is sure of his interpretation but does not act upon it yet and Horatio does not follow through to

point out other interpretations of Claudius’ response. The play-within-the-play thus illustrates

the characters’ indecisiveness as well as the importance of perception and interpretation when

looking at things from someone else’s point of view.

Another important element to the play-within-the-play is the theme of indecisiveness

and revenge and the resulting tragedy. Hamlet uses the play-within-the-play by rewriting it.

This gives him a chance to postpone his actual revenge as he can take revenge in the play

instead of in reality. His indecisiveness results in the fact that he does not take revenge in real

life and when he finally does it is too late and it results in his own tragedy. The play-within-

the-play in this case mirrors the main plot. From Hamlet’s point of view he has received proof

of Claudius’ guilt during the play-within-the-play; however, he does not act upon it

afterwards. When Hamlet sees Claudius praying on his knees shortly after the play-within-

the-play has taken place it could be his chance to take his revenge for the murder of his father.

However, Hamlet argues that if he kills Claudius now, while praying, his soul will go to

heaven and so it would not feel like revenge (Shakespeare 3.3.72-86). Again, just as Hamlet

did by altering the play-within-the-play, he is postponing his revenge. When looking at the
 Marinus, Daniek
25

play from Claudius’ point of view, he has become aware of Hamlet’s knowledge of the

murder of the king. Hamlet thus becomes a threat to Claudius who is searching for a way to

be rid of Hamlet as Hamlet has indirectly accused Claudius of the murder of his father in the

play-within-the-play. Claudius has no real reason to avenge himself on Hamlet; but he must

defend himself against Hamlet. Thus, in response to the play-within-the-play, Claudius sends

Hamlet off and from that moment onwards, a bloody outcome seems unavoidable. All of this

is set in motion because of what has happened in the play-within-the-play. The play-within-

the-play is thus of significance because it both, foreshadows as well as mirrors the main plot

of Hamlet.

Conclusion

The Murder of Gonzago is of meaning and significance to the play as a whole in multiple

ways. The play-within-the-play is for Hamlet a way to put off his revenge. By altering the

play he is able to get his revenge within the play-within-the-play instead of in reality. It seems

that Hamlet realises that he is avoiding revenge in reality in the Hecuba-speech where he

criticises himself for his indecisiveness. The play-within-the-play tells the story of a king who

is murdered in the same way that Hamlet’s father, the king, has been murdered. In this way

Hamlet wants to provoke a reaction of Claudius, and succeeds. However, the reason why

Claudius objects to the play and stops it is ambiguous as is explored in the previous chapter.

This emphasises the importance of perception and the differences in point of view. The play-

within-the-play also increases the desire for revenge for Hamlet and puts Claudius on his

guard. As Hamlet postpones his revenge, it ultimately leads to his destruction and tragedy. In

this way the play-within-the-play mirrors the play in general, in particular the following

themes: revenge and indecisiveness; and it also brings about the catastrophe.
 Marinus, Daniek
26

Conclusion

As mentioned in the introduction, Shakespeare’s plays have been given meaning repeatedly.

Whereas some critics argue that meaning is universal (Dent), others argue that meaning is

given by the audience and is related to the historical context in which they live (Hawkes,

Crosman). The focus of this thesis was on the way in which the relation between imagination

and reality is created in the play-within-the-play and its relation to the play as a whole.

Shakespeare’s use of the play-within-the-play is used to frame the play as a whole. This

includes the preparations for the play-within-the-play as well. I expected to find a relation

between the play-within-the-play and the themes of the play as a whole which is the case as I

will explain using the texts discussed above.

In A Midsummer Night’s Dream there are multiple worlds that start to interact with

each other, especially the Mechanicals and their play-within-the-play interact with the world

of the newlyweds and the world of the fairies. The play-within-the-play is supposed to be a

tragedy, however, because of the horrible acting of the Mechanicals the play turns into a

comedy. The preparations of the play-within-the-play allude to stage practice of the period

itself: the division of roles, Bottom who wants to play multiple roles and Philostrate who
 Marinus, Daniek
27

parallels the Master of Revels. The play-within-the-play that the Mechanicals perform is used

as a mirror to the play in general and serves as a symbolic manner to the audience watching A

Midsummer Night’s Dream. The relationship of Pyramus and Thisbe is a mirror of the

relationship of Hermia and Lysander as both couples try to escape the fate that awaits them if

they continue their relationship. The wall between Pyramus and Thisbe in the play-within-the-

play is a symbol of the madness of love. In the same way the play-within-the-play confronts

the on-stage audience with their own irrationality of love, without them realising this. The

play-within-the-play also reminds the newlyweds of the imagination of love and the idea of

being altered. The Mechanicals ask the audience to believe in the play that argues that love

comes in many forms such as its madness and irrationality. At the same time, the Mechanicals

remind the audience of the imagination that people need while watching a play. This tension

between reality and imagination is further explored with the idea of sight: blind Cupid that

alters the character’s love life but also Robin who drops the fluid on the eyes of the lovers.

The play-within-the-play suggests that the audience is living in the dark without sight. The

audience is arguably not able to distinguish reality from imagination, thus the question arises

whether A Midsummer Night’s Dream is indeed just a dream, or whether there is more reality

to it after all. In this way the play-within-the-play is used as a frame to the play as a whole and

also makes the audience aware of the fine line between reality and imagination which relates

to the idea about human destiny: is there a force greater than us who alters our lives, or not

and is it just imagination.

In Hamlet, the play-within-the-play again arguably mirrors the main plot as well. In

the preparations for the play-within-the-play, Hamlet instructs the actors to insert an extra

speech in the play to prove that Claudius is guilty. In this way he procrastinates the action of

revenge which suits his character. In his Hecuba-speech Hamlet contemplates his own

indecisiveness which is one of the main themes of the play as a whole. When the play-within-
 Marinus, Daniek
28

the-play actually happens Hamlet is convinced of Claudius’ guilt when he has stopped the

play. However, when considering Claudius interpretation, one discovers that he might have

his own reasons. The play-within-the-play suggests that the king’s cousin is the murderer

which implies that Hamlet has plans to kill the king, thus Claudius. The play also deals with

the wife of the murdered husband who promises never to remarry; this insults the wife of

Claudius as she got remarried soon after he husband died. In this way the play-within-the-play

illustrates how important it is to have a good understanding of different perspectives of the

characters as this arguably also brings about their motives.

The theme of indecisiveness in the preparations of the play-within-the-play and the

theme of revenge in the play-within-the-play itself relates to the resulting tragedy. The fact

that Hamlet procrastinates his revenge eventually results in his tragic ending. Because of the

play-within-the-play Claudius realises the threat Hamlet is to him and thus tries to kill him,

which again relates to the destruction in which the play ends. The play-within-the-play thus

mirrors the play in general as well as provoking the tragedy of the plot as a whole. Hamlet’s

indecisiveness influences his destiny which ultimately ends in tragedy. As just explored, the

play-within-the-play and the themes of the play as a whole relate to each other as was

expected in my hypothesis.

The focus of this thesis was on the way in which the play-within-the-play can reveal

some of the possible meaning of the text of the play as a whole and even more broadly about

human destiny. As just illustrated, the play-within-the-play in A Midsummer Night’s Dream

raises a question on human destiny; it uses the Chinese box theory where the audience is

watching the on-stage audience who watches the mechanicals perform a play. The on-stage

audience does not realise how the play-within-the-play illustrates their irrationality in love, in

the same way the audience watching the on-stage audience may wonder: who is in turn

observing them and is the theme of irrationality also applicable to the spectators? In Hamlet a
 Marinus, Daniek
29

construction like the Chinese box is not present as Hamlet’s own foolishness is not present in

the play-within-the-play in the way it is present in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. I also

expected to find a relationship between the play-within-the-play and the play as a whole

which is affirmed by both A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Hamlet.

As I was not able to explore all plays by Shakespeare that contain a play-within-the-

play, further research could be done on other plays containing metatheatricality. More

research could also be carried out on the relation between these plays and the differences or

similarities that might occur due to their difference in genre or due to the time they were

written.

Works cited
Arab, Ronda. Manly Mechanicals on the Early Modern English Stage. Susquehanna

University

Press, 2011. Web.

Baldick, Chris. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford University Press,

1996. Web.

Chambers, E. K. "Court Performances under James the First." The Modern Language

Review 4.2 (1909): 153-166. Web.

Cohen, Walter, Stephen Greenblatt, and Jean E. Howard. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed.

Walter Cohen, Jean E. Howard, Katharine, 1997. Print.

Dent, R. W. "Imagination in A Midsummer Night’s Dream." Shakespeare Quarterly, 15.2

(1964): 115-129. Web.

Egan, G. "Review of Andrew Gurr,.The Shakespeare Company, 1594-1642." The Sixteenth

Century Journal (2004): 155-157. Web.
 Marinus, Daniek
30

Evans, Blakemore G., ed. Elizabethan Jacobean Drama: the Theatre in its Time. Place: New
Amsterdam Books, 1998. Web.

Fisher, Peter F. "The Argument of A Midsummer Night's Dream." Shakespeare Quarterly 8.3

(1957): 307-310. Web.

Fly, Richard. "The Evolution of Shakespearean Metadrama: Abel, Burckhardt, and

Calderwood." Comparative Drama 20.2 (1986): 124-139. Web.

Grote, David. The Best Actors in the World: Shakespeare and His Acting Company.

Greenwood

Press, 2002. Web.

Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespeare Company, 1594-1642. Place: Cambridge University Press,

2004. Web.

Marshall, David. "Exchanging Visions: Reading A Midsummer Night’s Dream." ELH, 49.3

(1982): 543-575. Web.

Montrose, Louis. The Purpose of Playing: Shakespeare and the Cultural Politics of the
Elizabethan Theatre. Place: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Web.

Nellhaus, Tobin. "Social Ontology and (meta) Theatricality: Reflexions on Performance and
Communication in History." Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism (2000): 3-40.
Web.

Rosenmeyer, Thomas G. "'Metatheater': An Essay on Overload." Arion: A Journal of

Humanities and the Classics 10.2 (2002): 87-119.

Schechner, Richard. "Drama, Script, Theatre, and Performance." The Drama Review:

TDR, 17.3 (1973): 5-36. Web.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Wordsworth Editions, 2002. Print.

Shakespeare, William. A Midsummer Night's Dream. Wordsworth Editions, 2002. Print.

Siegel, Paul N. "A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Wedding Guests." Shakespeare

Quarterly, 4.2 (1953): 139-144. Web.

 Marinus, Daniek
31

Zak, William F. Hamlet's Problematic Revenge: Forging a Royal Mandate. Lexington Books,

2015. Web.