After hearing the report of the lovers about their night in the woods, Hippolyta believes that something truly "strange" has occurred. Theseus accepts that the stories are strange but doesn't think they are true. He famously creates a connection between the imaginations of lovers, lunatics, and poets: All three see beyond the limitation of "cool reason"; all are beset by fantasies. While the lunatic's imagination makes heaven into a hell, the lover's shapes beauty in the ugliest face. The poet, meanwhile, creates entire worlds from the "airy nothing" of imagination. In Theseus' opinion, all of the fantasies lack the stamp of truth, but Hippolyta is not convinced. Because all of the lovers tell the same story, she believes their tale, despite its seemingly fantastical attributes. Theseus is primarily the voice of reason, logic, law in the text, while Hippolyta valorizes the fantastic and imaginary as equally valid versions of the truth.
Yet Theseus also has a penchant for the absurd. He chooses the play of "Pyramus and Thisbe" as the entertainment for the post-wedding festivities because of its paradoxical nature. As discussed earlier, the play is billed as "tedious brief" and also "tragical mirth." Theseus wonders about this discordant assortment of adjectives, calling the play "hot ice" and "wondrous strange snow." Philostrate, the Master of Revels, warns Theseus that the play is "nothing," but even such bottomless entertainments, as "Bottom's Dream" showed, are something. Theseus is particularly impressed that the play will be performed by working-class actors. For him, the simpleness and sincerity of their efforts make nothing into something; the content is less important than the intentions of the actors.
Another rift exists here between Theseus and Hippolyta. While he feels that the actors' intentions are key, she does not think sincerity can make up for these amateur actors' lack of talent. Theseus disagrees, arguing that it is the audience's duty to recognize the actors' intentions. Is Theseus being kindhearted and egalitarian here or is he patronizing these lower-class actors? This is a question for the reader to answer, based on the details presented in the play, together with his or her experience of the world. Some readers might believe he is patronizing both the amateur actors and his new bride.
