1
HIRSH , James . Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies.Fairleigh Dickinson University
Press. Madison, NJ. 2003.
[…]
EXCERPTS
Soliloquies in Shakespeare’s works represent speeches by characters rather than
their unspoken thoughts. Shakespeare’s scrupulous adherence to this convention,
which had been in operation since the beginning of European drama, is
demonstrated by a enormous body of evidence from Shakespeare’s plays and
narrative poems. I have not encountered any evidence of any sort that any
soliloquy in any work written by Shakespeare represented an interior monologue.
Shakespeare did not follow this convention in a perfunctory or reluctant way.
The evidence clearly indicates that Shakespeare’s commitment to the convention
whereby soliloquies represented speech as a matter of course was due to both
practical and philosophical considerations. Even if the character speaking a
soliloquy was alone onstage, another character could enter at any moment and
overhear the remainder of the speech. Even if a character guarded a soliloquy
from the hearing of another character, the speech could be overheard by a third
character in hiding or by an entering character. Shakespeare profoundly explored
the consequences of the fact that human beings do not have direct access to the
minds of other human beings or even to all parts of their own minds. In an
amazing variety of ways, Shakespeare’s plays and poems dramatize the potential
consequences of this fact. Shakespeare chose to place playgoers and readers in
the same situation in regard to characters that characters face in regard to one
another and that people face in regard to one another. He chose to present
playgoers with only the outward behavior of each character, from which they are
encouraged to imagine the motivations that would have prompted such behavior
if the character were a real person. The evidence that soliloquies represented
speeches by characters is vast and diverse. (pgs. 119-120)
[…….]
The fact that soliloquies in Shakespeare’s plays entailed the risk of being
overheard affected characterization. A character who speaks to himself is
motivated to do so for some reason that outweighs the risk of being overheard.
The likelihood of being overheard varies from circumstance to circumstance, and
the speaker’s motive or impulse also varies. Depending on the circumstances,
speaking to oneself may suggest foolishness, madness, daring, duplicity, or
alienation from others. It may indicate a need to externalize one’s anger, grief,
2
desire, or other passion. A character may speak to himself in order to test his
ideas by literally hearing what they sound like. And so forth. By contrast, an
interior monologue would never entail a risk of being overheard and thereby
carries less suspense than a self-addressed speech consisting of the same words.
[……..]
OVERHEARD SOLILOQUIES
Soliloquies are […] overheard on numerous occasions in the worlds occupied by
Shakespeare’s characters. In Shakespeare’s plays whenever a character is
unaware of the presence of a second character, the second character overhears
the first character’s soliloquy unless the second character is asleep or there is
some other obvious impediment. Some of the most famous episodes in the canon
involve overheard soliloquies. (pg. 126)
[…..]
The establishment and maintenance of the conventions governing soliloquies did
not require the distribution of a document in the theater at each performance
explaining the conventions to playgoers. The conventions were established and
maintained simply because they operated explicitly so often that playgoers
became extremely familiar with their operation. They had been overtly spelled
out so often that they did not have to be overtly spelled out in every case. They
could operate implicitly.
[…]
SOLILOQUIES AND ASIDES
In Shakespeare’s plays, even a soliloquy guarded in an aside from other
characters represents a speech by the character rather than the character’s
unspoken thought. Properly understood, asides and soliloquies are not mutually
exclusive categories. An aside occurs when there are two or more characters
onstage and one character speaks but takes measures to prevent his or her speech
from being heard by at least one of the other characters. A character who speaks
3
an aside may direct the speech at one or more of the other characters onstage. He
or she may also choose to guard the speech from the hearing of all of the other
characters of whose presence he or she is aware. In the latter case, such a speech
is a soliloquy guarded in an aside. It is both an aside (a guarded speech) and a
soliloquy (a speech not directed at another character). Although a speech guarded
in an aside may seem quite unrealistic to post-Renaissance playgoers, it is a
situation that is not without precedent in real life. […]
[…]
Because even soliloquies in asides represented speeches, these soliloquies, like
other soliloquies, were in danger of being overheard. By convention a character
cannot guard a soliloquy from the hearing of a character unless the speaker is
aware of the other character’s presence. Thus, if a character guards a soliloquy
from a second character but is unaware of the presence of a third character, that
third character overhears the soliloquy (unless the third character is asleep or
there is some other clearly dramatized impediment). (pg.149)
[…]
In many instances in Shakespeare’s plays, a character is so overwhelmed by
emotion or so preoccupied or so flustered that he speaks to himself in the
presence of another character without guarding his soliloquy, or without
sufficiently guarding it, to escape detection by the other character. (pg. 151)
Shakespeare’s plays also contain many episodes in which a character is so in the
grip of powerful emotions that she does not care if others hear her self-addressed
speech and does not bother to guard the speech from other characters. In many of
these cases, the other characters do not comment on these speeches. (pg. 155)
[…]
Members of Shakespeare’s company must have been adept at conveying—by
means of tone of voice, facial expression, gesture, blocking, body language, and
so forth—differences among five kinds of speeches and transitions among them:
1. those the character directs at the other character or all the other characters onstage
4
2. those directed at some characters but guarded from the hearing of other characters
3. those guarded from the hearing of all characters onstage
4. those spoken by a character who is unaware of the presence of other characters
5. those spoken by a character who becomes oblivious of the presence of other
characters
(pg. 157)
[…]
A guarded speech (either a soliloquy or a speech directed to another character)
was spoken in a manner that distinguished it from a speech that was not
guarded— perhaps a stage whisper was used. Perhaps the actor also turned his
head to the side and made a hand movement. The actor had to take such overt
measures or else playgoers would assume the speech would be heard by other
characters on the stage. Every soliloquy delivered as an aside would thus have
been a conspicuous reminder of the fact that soliloquies represented the speech of
the character rather than merely words passing through the mind of the character.
Soliloquies guarded in asides occur very frequently in Shakespeare’s plays.
Because all asides represented speech and therefore could be overheard either if
an eavesdropper was present or if the speaker let down his or her guard even for
a second, every soliloquy spoken in an aside entailed an element of risk for the
speaker and an element of suspense for playgoers. (pg. 162)
[…]
In a number of cases a character feigns a soliloquy in a different way—by
pretending to have overheard a soliloquy spoken by a second character in order
to mislead a third character or even the second character himself. In Othello 3.3,
Iago tells Othello that he has overheard Cassio’s soliloquies, supposedly
addressed to a figment of Cassio’s dreaming imagination:
In sleep I heard him say, “Sweet Desdemona,
Let us be wary, let us hide our loves”… Cry, “O, what a noble mind is here
o’erthrown! …
Cry, “O sweet creature!” then kiss me hard,…
“Cursed fate that gave thee to the Moor!” (416–26)
5
[…]
FEIGNED SOLILOQUIES
As demonstrated by many examples […..], the convention whereby soliloquies,
even those guarded in asides, represented speech in combination with an
evidently insatiable appetite of Renaissance audiences for elaborate
eavesdropping episodes resulted in many episodes of overheard soliloquies in the
plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Once such episodes became
frequent and familiar, it was almost inevitable that dramatists would go a step
further and construct episodes in which a character, aware of the presence of an
eavesdropper, pretends to speak to himself in order to deceive the eavesdropper
about his actual state of mind. As demonstrated in earlier chapters, feigned
soliloquies occur in ancient Roman drama and in Renaissance drama, which was
strongly influenced by Roman drama. Not surprisingly, the greatest dramatist of
the Renaissance created the greatest examples of feigned soliloquies.(pg. 162)
“SHOW ME THY THOUGHT”
The convention by which soliloquies represented speeches by characters rather
than their unspoken thoughts was not a trivial or merely technical matter to
Shakespeare. Nor was the rigor with which Shakespeare abided by this
convention the result merely of its usefulness for the construction of interesting
eavesdropping episodes. His works amply demonstrate that he regarded as
profoundly important the aesthetic and philosophical implications of the fact that
human beings do not have direct access to the minds of others.
Throughout his career Shakespeare explored consequences of this fact. Othello
commands Iago,
Show me thy thought
(3.3.116)
6
But the play demonstrates that one can never be shown the unmediated thought
of another person. Shakespeare’s works also explore the potential consequences
of the inability of people to have full or wholly reliable knowledge even of their
own minds.
The most obvious result of the fact that human beings lack direct access to the
minds of others is that one person may lie to another person or conceal
something important. (pg. 174)
[…..]
INCOMPLETE AND FALLIBLE SELFKNOWLEDGE
Shakespeare’s works also pervasively and vividly dramatize the fact that human
beings do not even have full and infallible access to their own minds. Like real
people, many of his characters have significant gaps in their self-knowledge.
They fall victim to self-deception. They deny or suppress inconvenient or
frightening or painful self-knowledge. They suffer from uncertainty, confusion,
or incomprehension about their own motives, feelings, and beliefs.
[…]
Rather than being expressions of complete and utterly reliable self-knowledge,
soliloquies in Shakespeare’s plays provide vivid examples of the potential gap
between what a character says and what is actually going on in the character’s
mind. A soliloquy represents what a character says, not necessarily what a
character really believes or thinks or feels. Characters deceive themselves in
soliloquies or by means of soliloquies. Foolish characters do not become wise
when they speak to themselves. Inarticulate characters do not suddenly become
articulate in their soliloquies. Facetious characters do not become serious in their
soliloquies. Characters who display overheated imaginations in their speeches to
others are not magically cured of this ailment when they speak to themselves.
Characters whose emotions distort their perceptions do not become wholly
objective witnesses when they speak to themselves. Characters who sometimes
use irony in speeches to others do not abandon this device in speeches intended
7
only for their own hearing. Often a character speaks to himself in order to figure
out what he thinks or to change what he thinks or even perhaps to drown out
what he thinks. Articulate characters may have an advantage in expressing ideas
and feelings precisely in speech, but the ideas they express precisely may not
represent what they actually believe. Articulate characters are not necessarily less
subject to self-deception, self-manipulation, and evasion than inarticulate
characters. Indeed, an articulate person is better able to find the right words to
talk himself into something that he does not really believe. (pg. 181-182)
[…]
SOLILOQUIES AS BEHAVIOR TO BE
INTERPRETED
Because a soliloquy in a work by Shakespeare is a form of outward behavior
rather than a transparent window into a character’s soul, it requires the same sort
of imaginative effort on the part of a playgoer or reader as any other example of a
character’s behavior. This imaginative effort is similar to the effort we make
when we try to figure out what is going on in another real person’s mind. In order
to determine what is going on in another person’s mind, one has to extrapolate
from the person’s outward behavior. In some cases this extrapolation is simple
and obvious; in other cases it is complex or uncertain or both. In order to figure
out what is going on in the hypothetical mind of a character in a play by
Shakespeare, one similarly has to extrapolate from the character’s outward
behavior, the character’s speeches and actions, which is all that Shakespeare
gives us to go on. As with human beings, in some cases these extrapolations are
simple and obvious, but in other cases they are complex or uncertain or both.
These assertions apply as much to soliloquies as to all other speeches and
outward behavior of characters. Soliloquies are not necessarily more reliable than
other forms of behavior as a basis for reaching conclusions about a character’s
mental state. Many people find it easier to engage in self-deception than to
deceive a friend. Like any other form of behavior, soliloquies need to be
interpreted, and this requires placing them in the context of the rest of the
character’s speeches and actions.
[…..]
8
The popular notion that a soliloquy in a play by Shakespeare was meant to
provide an utterly reliable account of the innermost thought of a character is
profoundly mistaken. It is true that soliloquies often reveal specific aspects of a
character’s personality or situation. But so can other forms of outward behavior
of a character or of a real person. If the purpose of soliloquies were to reveal with
absolute reliability the essence of a character, it would follow that the more the
character spoke in soliloquy, the more clearly and fully that essence would be
revealed.(pg. 188)
[…]
If Shakespeare’s intention had been to use soliloquies to reveal the essence of
Hamlet’s character, he grossly bungled the job. Hamlet speaks to himself for
hundreds of lines, but rather than more and more clearly revealing his essence,
Hamlet’s soliloquies suggest that he does not have an essence, a single
uncomplicated core of being. Just as Hamlet plays roles in the presence of others,
he plays roles when he has only himself as an audience. The point is not that
soliloquies are always necessarily baffling or misleading. The point is that
soliloquies are not necessarily more inherently reliable or transparent than other
forms of a character’s outward behavior.
Shakespeare uses every available artistic tool to encourage readers and playgoers
to form conjectures about the imaginary mental activity of his characters.
Shakespeare does not forestall this process by providing readers with direct
access to the minds of characters. This was an artistic choice on Shakespeare’s
part. He chose to withhold from playgoers the power that Jesus possesses in the
Book of Matthew. All of Shakespeare’s plays in one way or another dramatize
the consequences of the fact that human beings do not possess the divine power
of reading minds. Providing playgoers with direct access to the mind of a
character would have provided a fantasy experience of possessing this godlike
power and would have radically undermined this basic tenet of all of his works.
(pg.189)