The Eye of Man Hath Not Heard: Shakespeare’s Subtle, Overt Rebellion Against English Society in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”
By: Ted Carver
Tags: Midsummer Nights Dream, English History, Shakespeare, English

Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, one of his most enduring plays and one of the most enduring pieces of literature in human history, features a plucky group of comically stupid actors attempting to put on a great play despite all the odds being stacked against them. Bottom, Quince, and the other actors serve as a satirical version of acting troupes during Elizabethan England, designed to demonstrate the relative harmlessness of actors to a ruling class thoroughly opposed to such groups. This depiction was born out of two simple facts. First, that the English elite viewed theater as a threat to social order, and second, that Shakespeare agreed and thus doubled down, as he believed that the social order needed changing.

The Shakespeare Festival, in Ashland, Oregon

It wasn’t easy being an actor or playwright during the late 16th century, as the aristocracy of London were vehemently opposed to the very idea of theater, and Queen Elizabeth’s slightly more liberal policies still permitted mass censorship and regulation of the performing arts. Queen Elizabeth managed to squash out many amateur dramatics and eventually left just two working theaters. Aristocratic Londoners were repulsed that, as Louis Montrose put it, one could “earn his living by playing, rather than working.” Plenty of elites firmly believed that theater would upend the long-held social structure of medieval England and that those who performed the plays were immoral and trying to corrupt the common people. Preachers and other religious figures saw their followings significantly diminished as people flocked to the theater for life lessons that their priests and preachers had no intention of conveying or ability to do so.

Louis Montrose, in his 1980 writing, “The Purpose of Playing: Reflections on a Shakespearean Anthropology” details how the action in Shakespeare’s plays is typically centered around a turning point in a main character’s life. Montrose writes that the plot of a Shakespeare play almost always occurs at the intersection of an interpersonal conflict, be it between “different families, generations, sexes, classes,” and an intrapersonal conflict arising as a result of “birth, puberty, marriage, [or] death.” In Elizabethan England, the social structures, often religious, were not designed for personal growth and more so to ensure that everyone would remain content enough in their professions and lives so as not revolt in the streets. Shakespeare, and theater in general, threw this into disarray as they made theater, now a hub of entertainment for the lower and middle-class, into a crash course on themselves and introspection. Shakespeare knows the elite view theater as a threat to social order and he leans into that. In A Midsummer Night’s Dream, his depiction of Bottom, Quince, and their troupe of simple-minded actors is a taunt to the aristocracy, subtly asking the elite if these fools are really the people subverting their entire society. The answer, of course, is yes.

Shakespeare takes a direct shot at the religious institution when he uses Bottom to spectacularly misquote a famous speech by St. Paul. St. Paul gave an eloquent speech in 1 Corinthians 2 where he describes how beautiful and wonderful God’s gifts to mankind are, describing the fact that “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him” (1 Corinthians 2:9 ESV). It’s a powerful, articulate speech that goes to show that St. Paul is a God-fearing, respectful, and wise saint. Bottom’s version, however, is quite different from St. Paul’s. After coming out of a spell that had given him the head of a donkey and the love of Titania, he believes it was a dream and declares that “man is but an ass if he got about to expound this dream” (AMND, Act 4, Scene 1, Lines 216–217). Bottom’s dream was so spectacular and wild that Bottom believes that no one could possibly understand, thus declaring that “the eye of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not seen, man’s hand is not able to taste, his tongue to conceive, nor heart to report what my dream was” (AMND, Act 4, Scene 1, Lines 220–224). This misquote is the equivalent of a slap in the face for the church, as one of their holiest men, a saint, has his beautiful speech misquoted by a character viewed by the audience as a bumbling idiot. The church, which had declining attendance due to the proliferation of theater, gets openly mocked by Shakespeare, and it’s done perfectly since the initial and obvious assumption is that Bottom’s stupidity is being ridiculed, when in reality it’s the entire Anglican Church. In Elizabethan England, the state and the church were deeply interconnected, and Montrose states that “to the extent that the Elizabethan church was a state institution…the perceived threat to reformed religion posed by the theatres could also be construed as a political threat to the authority of the state.” Shakespeare’s veiled, barely noticeable swipe at the church was actually a masterful right hook at the government and religion, all conveyed through the medium of Bottom’s lovable, moronic self.

Quince’s prologue is yet another example of using a foolish character to convey Shakespeare’s serious message. At the beginning of Act 5 and just prior to the performance of Pyramus and Thisbe, Quince comes out to deliver a message to the audience. He tells those in attendance that “If we offend, it is with our good will. That you should think we come not to offend, but with good will. To show our simple skill, that is the true beginning of our end. Consider then we come but in despite. We do not come as minding to contest you, our true intent is. All for your delight we are not here. That you should here repent you, the actors are at hand, and by their show you shall know all that you are like to know” (AMND, Act 5, Scene 1, Lines 114–124). Quince butchers his speech magnificently, declaring to the audience that he and the other actors are there to offend, that this play will get the actors executed, and that he hopes the patrons leave sorry they came. This speech has the same general gist as Bottom’s misquote. It’s comical to the audience, who are used to Bottom, Quince, and the actors coming out and saying something uproariously stupid to get laughs from the audience. However, the prologue should be interpreted as an address to the government, as Shakespeare has indeed written the play to offend the upper class, he knows the risks just as Quince mistakenly says the play will get them executed, but he assures the royalty they’ll be sorry they let Shakespeare put this play on. It’s a masterful display of writing that Shakespeare has written something so hilarious for the common folks to enjoy, but so subversive and intended to enrage the ruling class.

Throughout A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Bottom, Quince, and the actors all fret that the audience will not understand Pyramus and Thisbe is a play and will be horrified or scared by various parts of the play. Thus, Bottom suggests that he has figured out how to avoid this problem, telling his fellow actors, “I have a device to make all well. Write me a prologue and let the prologue seem to say we will do no harm with our swords, and that Pyramus is not

killed indeed. And for the more better assurance, tell them that I, Pyramus, am not Pyramus, but Bottom the weaver. This will put them out of fear” (AMND, Act 3, Scene 1, Lines 16–21). This is Shakespeare’s most blatant satirization of the religious and governmental leaders, who were terrified of and desperately tried to stop the theater’s influence. Bottom’s suggestion that the actors inform the audience not to be scared was Shakespeare making a joke out of the church and the state since they were so scared of the same thing. Bottom requests that the audience be informed that he is simply Bottom the weaver, not Pyramus, just as Shakespeare is telling the authorities that he is just a humble writer of plays, not someone to be worried about. It’s a perfect use of the play within a play as a vessel to so openly yet so discreetly convey a hidden message to those who find him to be a wicked influence. The message certainly goes over the head of the commoners in attendance who see Bottom as a simple, fun, stupid character. Shakespeare’s message to the crown is that these simple, fun, stupid people are going to change the way things work for good.

Montrose’s essay, entitled ‘The Purpose of Playing: Reflections on a Shakespearean Anthropology,” views Shakespeare in a holistic, more worldly sense than most literary criticisms would. Toni Morrison said, “Cultural identities are formed and informed by a nation’s literature” and the inverse is also true, that a nation’s literature is formed and informed by cultural identities. Thus, it is irresponsible to view any work of literature as a self-contained body, but instead it must be evaluated as part of the greater context of its historical significance and cultural influences. Montrose’s Shakespearean anthropology discussed the lack of rites of passage in Elizabethan England and how the theater filled that void, as well as the “anti-structure” prevalent in many of Shakespeare’s plays. The anthropological approach taken by Montrose means that he evaluates the literature in the context of how the world around Shakespeare shaped his writing, as well as the impact his work had on the world around him, such as, Montrose posits, providing a medium to teach the lower and middle class Londoners about introspection and personal growth.

Earlier, I evaluated A Midsummer Night’s Dream in an anthropological sense by regarding the social and political climate of Elizabethan England and how it influenced Shakespeare’s writing, especially how he used Pyramus and Thisbe to critique the ruling class. If A Midsummer Night’s Dream was evaluated in a vacuum, Bottom and Quince would simply be comical characters. However, when viewed in an anthropological sense, the two bumbling actors become biting, satirical figures designed and effectively employed to ridicule the London elite so terrified of the theater. Additionally, most of the hidden messages aimed at the church and state were in the discussion of the making of the play, such as Bottom discussing having Quince write a poem about his dream, Quince’s prologue prior to the play, and Quince’s suggestion that they assure the audience the play is not real and they are actors. The fact that these hidden messages mainly show up in the process of making play only furthers the fact that Shakespeare’s silent insurrection was a direct threat to the ruling class, as Shakespeare shows that even fools like Bottom and Quince making plays can undermine society, and therefore Shakespeare definitely can do so as well. An anthropological view of Shakespeare grants a deeper comprehension of his motivations for writing as well as his meaning and provides the truest understanding of his work as a whole.