Page 1 Table of Contents [621325]

Page | 1 Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE
Shakespeare versus Shakespeare: A Comparison of Tragedy and Comedy … 2

CHAPTER TWO
Elizabethan Theatre and the Play within a Play as a Concept ……………………. 6
The Theatre: The Space for Drama ………………………….. ………………………… 7
The Play within a Play ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 10
Shakespearean Theater in Elizabethan England ………………………….. …….. 12

Page | 2 CHAPTER ONE
Shakespeare versus Shakespeare: A Comparison of Tragedy
and Comedy
– An Introduction –

Time and time again, the works of the Bard have been the subject of much controversy
regardless of the chosen topic ( the plays’ subject, the characters, the subtle parallels to the times
in which the plays were written etc.). After almost five centuries since their deb ut, the question
must be asked: why do the plays of William Shakespeare still retain so much interest with the
masses ?
The present paper shall attempt to answer that question with a simple yet complex side –
by-side comparison between two of the Bard’s plays : Hamlet, Prince of Denmark and A
Midsummer Night’s Dream.
It might appear that there is very little to compare but if one takes a very special aspect
into consideration, one might discover quite a few interesting things. That which one must first
note is the usage in both plays of the play within a play. This concept is a most intriguing of
concepts and provides certain insights which might otherwise be overlooked had the concept not
been used to begin with.
The present chapter shall deal with the basic in formation about William Shakespeare as
well as provide a context for the subject to be analyzed throughout the paper’s contents. The first
aspects of the subject shall be further analyzed in the second chapter, Elizabethan Theater and
the Play within a Pla y as a Concept. There, the present paper shall take a look at that era which
solidified the popularity of the theater among the English people as Martha Fletcher -Bellinger so
states:

“The theatre was a public amusement form of innovation in the
social lif e of the Elizabethans, and it immediately took the general fancy.
Like that of Greece or Spain, it developed with amazing rapidity and
popularity.”
(Fletcher -Bellinger , 1927:139)

Page | 3 The first section of the second chapter shall explore the evolution of the t heatrical stage
and is titled The Theater: The Space for Drama. It shall mention the theater’s humble beginnings
in Ancient Greece then it shall attempt to point out why this form of entertainment was the only
source of entertainment in the sixteenth centu ry. It will also provide a short but comprehensive
description of how the theatre was the only place where a play could be brought t o life.
The second section of the second chapter shall connect to the previous section by
analyzing a concept often seen in plays: The Play within a Play. Here, the present paper shall
present a short history of this concept, how it came to be and why is it used despite its inherent
ability to confuse the reader .
The third and final section of the second chapter shall dive into the theatrical world
during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. It shall be titled Shakespearean theater in Elizabethan
England and it shall primarily deal with how the plays of Shakespeare were viewed during that
time.
At the same time, the second chapter se rves as the background for the third chapter which
shall represent the core of the present paper. Titled Danish Tragedy and Greek Comedy, it shall
consist of a comparison between Hamlet, Prince of Denmark and A Midsummer Night’ s Dream.
The first section of the third chapter shall be titled Plays as Mirrors of Reality and shall
attempt to point out that quite often enough, writers use stories and playwrights use plays in
order to point out that which they do not agree with in real life or to make a mockery o f said
reality. In some cases, the plays show how life truly was for the “common folk ” and how it was
for the nobility.
This section shall tie with the second one, The Play within the Play as a Tool for
Enlightenment in the sense that the second section sh all too point out how the usage of a play
within a play reveals A, secrets of other characters as well as plot -solving information, and B, the
in-authors’ own feelings or those of secondary characters’ with regards to the play’s subject .
On the subject of characters, the third section of the third chapter shall be titled
Characters as Actors in the Play. Here, the present paper shall analyze the characters’ dual role:
they are characters in the main play as well as in the play within the play. To briefly ex emplify,
Hamlet is a character in his own play in which he points out the murder of his father and Bottom
is both actor and participant in the play (when he meets Titania in Act III, Scene I, he assumes
the role of Titania’s false love interest).

Page | 4 Finally, the fourth and final section of the third chapter shall deal with yet another
comparison: The World as a Stage. It is here that the present paper shall utilize Jaques’ final
speech from As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII in which Jaques compares the entire world to a
theater’s stage and the people to the actors.
The fourth and la st chapter of the present paper, Dramatic Conclusions with Comedic
Undertones shall summarize the contents previously presented through all the other chapters. It
shall attempt to id entify the main idea of each chapter and combin e them into one, simple and
elegant answer to the present paper's goal : answering the question of Shakespeare’s plays
capturing the attention and interest of people in the twenty -first century as much or perha ps more
than when they were first enacted.
William Shakespeare was born in 1564 in Stratford -upon -Avon, Warwickshire. At the
tender age of eighteen, he married Anne Hathaway, a marriage which produced three children.
He enjoyed a flourishing and commendabl e carrier as a playwright between 1589 and 1613, a
period which produced plays such as Macbeth, Othello, King Lear, Hamlet, A Midsummer
Night’s Dream, The Taming of the Shrew and As You Like It. In 1613, he retired from the
theatrical stage and lived out t he rest of his life in Stratford where he died three years later.
With a great career comes great mystery and speculation, the most interesting and
controversial of which is no doubt whether or not Shakespeare’s plays were truly his or were, in
fact, the w ork of others. For the purposes of the present paper, the plays themselves have the
most important role, not their origins.
As such, a comparison between Shakespeare’s arguably most famous tragedy and
comedy might not seem, at first, as a worthy pursuit. H owever, when both are broken down to
their basic component, new evidence is shown in favor of further analysis: both plays attempt to
resolve a conflict. One play has a tragic conflict in which a horrific mystery must be solved, the
other has a comical con flict in which four lovers are fooled into thinking they love different
characters than what their hearts desire.
Both plays attempt to solve their conflicts in the specific ways of their dramatic genre. In
Hamlet, the ultimate solution to the conflict is death while in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the
conflict is resolved with love. These opposing forces have a very clear role to play within the
spaces of their respective plays. The tragedy has a dark, somber themes of revenge, madness and
even suicide while the comedy has more lively themes like mischief, marriage and magic .

Page | 5 When one first reads either play, one is undoubtedly impressed by the Bard’s wordplay.
Upon a second read, the reader may appreciate the manner in which the characters are thrown
into th e conflict or they themselves cause it then how they manage to resolve it. It is only upon a
third and fourth and perhaps many more reads of the plays that one manages to discover
common, deeper themes and motifs than one previously did.
As previously sta ted, the full comparison between the tragic Hamlet and comedic A
Midsummer Night’s Dream shall be displayed within the contents of the third chapter. At
present, it is important to first take a look at the background over which these plays were
conceived s o that one might have better understanding of their importance to the present times.

Page | 6 CHAPTER TWO
Elizabethan Theatre and the Play within a Play as a Concept

There is no better space to analyze both the birth and evolution of play a daptations for the
present paper than the theater stage itself . William Hazlitt so says himself in the Author’s Preface
of his A View of the English Stage: Or, A Series of Dramatic Criticisms:

“The Stage is one great source of public amusement, not
to say instruction. A good play, well acted, passes away a whole
evening delightfully at a certain period of life, agreeably at all
times;”
(Hazlitt 1906 : XV )

While th e above quote was first uttered through the written word in the year 1906 and
well after the Renaissance, it is no less a true statement than if it had been stated during that great
period itself . What Hazlitt wants to say is that the theater stage is both a place of entertainment
and learning \teaching. He emphasizes this by referring to the theat er stage simply as “the Stage”
with a capital ‘S’. This proves that in his view, there is more to the theater than meets the eye.
Indeed, one could argue that it is its own, special, even mystical place in its own right.
But how can such a thing be accompl ished? How can something as simple as a stage
receive such a high and exalted status?
The next section of the present chapter shall endeavor to answer this puzzling question by
analyzing this place of wonder of which only a selected few are a part of in an attempt to
understand why the theater used to be not only the preferred method of relaxation but also the
only option available during the time of the Renaissance . Furthermore, the usage of the
designation “the Stage” shall be used occasionally when refer encing the theatrical stage in order
to emphasize its important role in play adaptation and not just. A short but comprehensive
presentation of the theatrical space shall be provided followed by an analysis of the “play within
a play” concept’s origins. A third section shall end the chapter with a look at how William
Shakespeare’s plays were viewed and acted during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.

Page | 7 The Theatre: The Space for Drama
The theater1 at its origins is a simple word derived from the Ancient Greek te rm théatron ,
“a place for viewing .” This would provide an arguably fundamental answer for the question,
what is a theater?
If one were to take a deeper look into providing a different answer for that question, one
will inevitably discover something truly a mazing. It can be stated that in one’s search for a
different definition as to what a theater is, one will cross paths with all the genres which theater
plays bring to life (musicals, historical plays , satyr play etc.).
However, one can also state that the re are two main categories which dominate the
theatrical space: tragedy and comedy. The present paper attempts to analyze a representative of
each, both from The Bard: tragedy in Hamlet and comedy in A Midsummer Night’s Dream . It is
of note that each play shall be analyzed in depth in the following chapter. For the purposes of the
present section, it is of note that a bit of comedy can be found in Hamlet while a bit of tragedy
can be discovered in A Midsummer Night’s Dreams thus demonstrating how complex th e
theatrical space truly is than one might think so at first glance.
When broken down to its most basic components, the theater is a delicate balance of live
performance and live audience, a symbiosis between the actors’ interpretation and the spectators’
reactions to their movements and speech. On a deeper level, it is a sacred space where simple
words truly come to life and take the viewers into a world they would have never journeyed to by
any other means.
It is true that modern means of entertainment pr ovide a whole new area of one’s
immersion into the story provided ( 3D cinematic experiences, personal computers to name a
couple of those methods), during the sixteenth century and the Renaissance Era, there was only
one method with which one could tempora rily escape one’s daily routine: theater going. It was
also a means by which people from all social classes could gather and engage in gossip prior to
the start of the performance. Therefore, the theater held a much more important role than by
merely provi ding entertainment for the masses.

1 Originally spelled theatre and teatre. From around 1550 to 1700 or later, the most common spelling was
theater. Between 1720 and 1750, theater was dropped in British English, but was either retained or revived in
American English (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 2009, CD -ROM: ISBN 9 780199563838). Recent
dictionaries of American English list theatre as a less common variant, e.g., Random House Webster's College
Dictionary (1991); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th edition (2006); New Oxford
American Dictiona ry, third edition (2010); Merriam -Webster Dictionary (2011).

Page | 8 Why then is theater still such an important reference even to this day and age?
Because of its unique introduction into the world .
At its most humble beginnings in Ancient Greece, a theater was a place where important
festivals would take place as well as religious ceremonies and most importantly, p olitical or
philosophical gatherings. Even weddings and sports events would be held within the space of a
theater. With such a plethora of different types of events occurring wi thin the same physical
space, it stands to reason that problems would arise in both crowd control and retaining crowd
interest alive.
Therefore rhetoric was crucial, regardless of event type. Or rather, because of event type.
A sports contest did not requi re any advanced eloquence pass the announcement of the game’s
progress or the names of the players. A politician or philosopher however needed to have not
only a clear and precise rhetoric but also an engaging one. Both speakers needed to present their
ideas and visions in such a manner as to impose themselves and their words upon the ones
listening but in such a way as to not alienate them or make them feel threatened or worse, less
intelligent than the speakers.
And that is how the building blocks for the ater as we know it today were put.
The Stage’s evolution is without a shadow of a doubt intriguing and entertaining in its
own rights and spans over a period of at least two and a half thousand years but for the purposes
of the present section, the Renaiss ance Era is of particular note with its Italian roots in commedia
dell'arte .
Commedia dell'arte centered on the actors themselves and promoted heavy improvisation
on their part in addition to the script. There were props, of course but those served a truly
decorative role and provided few important hints with regards to the overall plot. Of note is also
the fact that commedia dell’arte troops travelled from town to town, they did not settle in one
place and offered daily or nightly performances.
It was thei r popularity among the common folk that interest for thi s type of live
performance grew then evolved. Props slowly received a slightly higher status but costumes were
without question the second half of a live performance on the Stage, the first being of c ourse the
actors themselves. With regards to this, the performers, it is of crucial importance to point out
that during the Elizabethan Era, women were not allowed to perform on stage. Therefore, all

Page | 9 English adaptations of that time consisted solely of mal e actors, both adult and young but this
shall be further discussed in the final section of the present chapter.
With all this sudden interest in the dramatic adaptations of plays, a question arises: why
was there such a need for these performances? The bes t answer to this questions is perhaps best
show n in Jonathan Bates’ Shakespearean Constitutions: Politics, Theatre, Criticism 1730 –1830 :

“Oehrlein points to four elements that favoured the development of
contemporary dramatic, art: i) the writing of plays by famous dramatists
such as Lope and Calderón; ii) the need for amusement of a large leisured
class; iii) the public welfare provided by the theater’s financing the hospital
system; iv) the need of the temporal and ecclesiastical power of display.”
(Bate s 1989:266)

To simplify, the needs of the people as well as the political context of the era dictated the
need for the Stage to evolve. It can be stated without doubt that the contextual chaos which is a
natural bi -product of any era or age resulted in th e creation of something wonderful: the theater
stage.
It was and still is within this confined space that the first hint of true freedom was born.
This is of course an artistic freedom which allows for one’s imagination to run free and without
hinges. It i s a kind of freedom which appeals to all regardless of social status for everyone
dreams of having the possibility of putting their thoughts and ideas into the real world.
This is the very reason why theater was the preferred place of bringing drama to lif e as
opposed to any other. It is within the Stage that crowds c ould see the actors performing live and
right before their very eyes. They c ould see for themselves how the actors voice d their actions or
lifted up their spirits with witty jokes. They c ould also appreciate the amount of effort put into
creating complex costumes and decorations which help ed in submerging them into the play more
easily.
While modern adaptations have clearly taken the theatrical performances of old to
completely new territories a nd opened the doors for a fresh and complex kind of entertainment,
the humble origins of the Stage were clearly superior in their simplicity. The Stage focused on
the basic need of a crowd for live acting with emphasis on the acting. It was the actors’ dut y to
engage the viewer’s imagination by making them think they were on a field of grass or having
trouble at sea. Today’s special effects have taken care of that aspect with ease but the risk arises

Page | 10 of concentrating more on those effects than the actors th emselves whereas the Stage would be
nothing without the actors.
In some special plays, it is also the actors’ duty to point out to the viewers that the
characters are going to adapt a play of their own while they themselves are already characters of
a play . It is this at first confusing aspect that shall be discussed in the next section of the present
chapter.

The Play within a Play
When speaking about a part of a complex genre, it is common to first provide a definition
in order to better understand the d iscussed topic. As such, the concept of a play within a play can
be best defined as follows:

“Dramaturgically speaking it describes a strategy for constructing
play texts that contain, within the perimeter of their fictional reality, a
second or internal theatrical performance, in which actors appear as actors
who play an additional role. This duplication of the theatrical reality is often
reinforced by the presence onstage of an “internal audience” which acts as a
double to the actual audience .”
(“The Pla y within the Play: Scholarly Perspectives ”)

In simpler terms, the play within a play is a theatrical adaptation within a theatrical
adaptation: it ta kes the elements already within the main play in order to create a smaller play
which serves a very specif ic role. However, this shall be discussed in depth in the following
chapter. For the purposes of the present section, a brief description of the two major plays within
plays shall be provided then analyzed.
It is also of note this, very brief account of th e play within a play’s origins:

“The play within the play boasts a long and notable tradition in
European theatre and dramatic literature: it is a dramaturgical strategy that
playwrights from Aristophanes to Heiner Müller have put to a wide range of
purpo ses.”
(“The Play within the Play: Scholarly Perspectives ”)

William Shakespeare re sorts to this method of conveying deeper meaning to his plays
within Hamlet and A Midsummer Night’ s Dream.

Page | 11 In his tragedy, prince Hamlet creates a play titled, The Murder of Gonzago in order to
determine who the murderer of his father truly is. Or rather, to confirm his suspicion upon the
criminal’s identity. It is never pointed out in Hamlet how the king is killed, only so stated by the
Ghost itself :

“GHOST: I am thy father’ s spirit,
Doom’d for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confin’d to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes, done in my days of nature,
[…] To ears of flesh and blood. –List, Hamlet, O list! –
If thou didst ever thy dear father love –
HAMLET: O Go d!
GHOST: Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder.”
(Hamlet, 1.5.9 -25)

The Ghost then tells Hamlet how it remembers being murdered an d urges him to avenge
its death. Before he can exact revenge, Hamlet must first prove that the murderer is indeed his
uncle, Claudius. Therefore, he creates The Murder of Gonzago which he enacts with the help of a
theatrical troupe passing through.
In his comedy, the story of Pyramus and Thisbe2 echoes the plight of the four lovers,
Helena, Hermia, Lysander and Demetrius. The story is told at the request of Theseus so that he
and his guests might pass the time more entertainingly until the hour of sleep comes. The play is
enacted by the common craftsmen, part of whom are Quince, Snug, Flute and Bottom. Pyramus
and Thisbe is in essence the re -telling of Romeo and Juliet : two lovers are denied their love by
their parents and as such, they plan to elope. However, tragedy foils their plans. Pyramus
discovers the bloody cape of his lover and commits suicide, thinking that Thisbe has
undoubtedly been mauled by a lion. When Thisbe discovers the body of Pyramus, she also kills
herself in order to join him in the next life.
The reasons behind the necessity of both plays shall be analyzed in depth within the
following chapter. The pres ent section requires a pointing out that, for the moment, the role of a
play within a play is to on the one hand, provide an answer to a mystery, and on the other, add an
element of seriousness to an otherwise frivolous work of drama.

2 Shown in Act 5, Scene I in an apartment in Theseus’ palace and before a host of lords and attendants, as
well as Theseus himself, Hippolyta, Philostrate, Helena, Hermia, Lysander and Demetrius.

Page | 12 The question then ari ses, why is there a need for such a complex component? Wouldn’t it
confuse the audience instead of making them understand more subtle components of the main
play?
The answer is both simple and complicated at the same time. While it is true that at the
time, only those of upper class and nobility would be able to understand the subtleties of a play
within a play, this was also a hidden challenge for the common folk as well. In essence, it was as
if telling the masses, can you guess the hidden meaning? Those who did manage to understand
the real reason for the existence of a play within a play would feel compelled to return and try to
find deeper meaning in the following night’s performance.
Therefore, the play within a play served and continues to serve a dua l purpose: give clues
to existing mysteries of the acted play (or show alternate plot resolving scenarios but more on
that in the following chapter) and challenge the minds of the audience. It is both a helping and
learning tool at the same time. Any playw right which uses this tool proves that they wish to
produce a work of art which demands close attention to details and a keen mind to notice the
subtle implications using a play within a play entices.
However, using such a tool can be both beneficial and h azardous. Every work of art
which consists of words is open to interpretation like any form of art. Words can cause more
damage than a painting or a sculpture thus how a playwright formulates his or her ideas in the
play is of utmost importance. This aspec t shall be analyzed more closely in the following section
of the present chapter.

Shakespearean Theater in Elizabethan England
For technical purposes, it should be noted that the Elizabethan era refers to the reign of
Queen Elizabeth I which lasted from 1 558 to 1603. It is known as the Golden Age wherein the
dramatic stage flourished with the works of such playwrights as Ben Johnson, Christopher
Marlowe and of course, William Shakespeare. However, the English theater stage str etche d all
the way to 1642 and encompasse d the reigns of three monarchs: Elizabeth I, James I and Charles
I, thus forming the English Renaissance era.
As is with every era, the church has a strong say in the control of entertainment . Theater
was used in order to preach the teachings of the church to the masses . Anyone who dared to put a

Page | 13 show that had anything but a religious theme was thought of as agents of evil and therefore
brought naught but plague and disaster:

“An earthquake had occurred in 1580, and in the following year
there w as a recurrence of the plague. At a bear -baiting show, given on a
Sunday, a wooden scaffolding had given way, killing several people and
injuring others. A few years later, a brawl outside the theater caused serious
disturbance. To many of the good people of London, all these things were
signs of the wrath of heaven against the play -acting profession, and
arguments for its extermination. ”
(Fletcher -Bellinger , 1927:246)

Simply put, it was the work of the devil to put on a play that did not revolve around th e
teachings of the church and therefore it upset God.
However, the very livelihood and survival of theatrical productions depended on the good
will of their sovereign. Powerful as the church was, even it could not go over the word o f the
monarch quite so b luntly. More so even than that, it could not truly put a stop to its inhabitants’
powers of imagination. It could not stop the publication of such works as The Devil Is an Ass
(Johnson, 1616 first performed, 1631 first published) or Doctor Faustus (Marlowe , first
performed between 1588 and 1593). Both examples are borderline blasphemous but perhaps
provided a different kind of entertainment to monarchs which drew sympathy and favor.
For Shakespeare’s part, works such as Richard II, Titus Andronicus and Haml et posed
somewhat of a problem for they tackled subjects which involved the monarchy, his histories in
particular. Comedies such as A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Comedy of Errors in their
inherent trait of satyr were not as problematic were more tolera ted than others.
Other playwrights and play adaptations faced possible termination due to a combination
of factors, as previously stated: the church, their subject and the manner in which the play was
acted out. It stands to reason that a humble play about the teachings of the bible would entail
modest clothing, proper and clean rhetoric, and simple sets and props. Anything other than that
as a subject would presume the exact opposite: flamboyant costumes, suggestive props and
considerably different languag e not in the sense that playwrights resumed to the usage of cuss
words or otherwise “bad” language. On the contrary, they would use eloquent and concise words
but which were filled with subtext and subtle implications if one paid close enough attention.
And yet, all was not as bleak as it seemed:

Page | 14
“Fortunately, the stage had a powerful friend in Queen Elizabeth.
Since companies of actors “belonged ” to the queen and were under the
protection of the highest nobles of the land, the fight over the theaters
resolved itself mainly into a struggle on the part of the queen's agents, or
counsel, to outwit the decrees of the city Corporation. One method was to
regard the giving of a play as a “rehearsal ” for a royal production. Of course
these “rehearsals ” could be as numerous as the manager wished; and the
public could be, and was, admitted. ”
(Fletcher -Bellinger , 1927:247)

In other words, if the sovereign deemed the plays acceptable and liked them, arguments
could be made towards the theater’s survival. To that end, numerous playhouses were built for
the expr ess purpose of acting out plays, as so pointed out:

“The great popularity of plays of all sorts led to the building of
playhouses both public and private, to the organization of innumerable 140
companies of playe rs both layman and professional, and to countless
difficulties connected with the au thorship and licensing of plays.
(Fletcher -Bellinger , 1927:139 -140)

However, those playhouses were located outside of London as opposed to deeper within
the city. This all owed for a mixed audience composed of both loud, common people and more
refined, quiet nobility. It was perhaps the ideal combination for if the nobility liked the
production, the odds in favour of the play’s and establishment’s continuation increased. Int erest
was also retained for a live performance and would ensure the audience’s return for other
production, thus obtaining public loyalty.
That loyalty and promise of return to the Stage meant the difference between life and
death. It was possible that a p laywright would create a play which the masses might not
understand save for the educated nobility. However, if the production of the play pleased well
enough, then chances were that even the commoners would desire to see more works of the
playwright.
William Shakespeare was perhaps a lucky playwright for he could produce complex
tragedies and histories alongside comedies which appealed to both sides of the audience.
However, even his comedies had a deeper meaning to them if one paid close enough attention.
The following chapter shall attempt to further analyze the similarities as well as differences

Page | 15 between the complexity of a tragedy and a comedy in the bodies of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.