Shakespeare's Soliloquies

Ingeborg Boltz, Wolfgang Clemen

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135032890
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

First published in 1987. Often the best known and most memorable passages in Shakespeare's plays, the soliloquies, also tend to be the focal points in the drama. Twenty-seven soliloquies are examined in this work, illustrating how the spectator or reader is led to the soliloquy and how the drama is continued afterwards. The detailed structure of each soliloquy is discussed, as well as examining them within the structure of the entire play - thereby extending the interpretation of the work as a whole.

1

Introduction

When we have been reading a Shakespeare play, or have seen one in the theatre, we may feel the need to attain a closer and more precise understanding of it. We sense that this can happen only through the study of individual aspects of the plays. Although it is by Shakespeare as a whole that we are affected, yet this whole can only be approached by the study of individual elements – by a scene, a passage, a certain manner of representation or a recurring element of the drama.

The soliloquies, some of which have been selected for examination in this volume, are one of the elements through which we may gain access to the whole. Their study is particularly fruitful in enabling us to grasp something of the distinctive quality of Shakespeare's craftsmanship, being in-miniature reflections of his art of language and characterization, and his skill of dovetailing in the construction of scenes. Each soliloquy is connected in different ways and at different levels with the dramatic organism as a whole. There are more than 300 soliloquies in Shakespeare's plays and we find them in every play, but their frequency in the individual plays varies, as does their length, which ranges from half a line to seventy. Yet this is less remarkable than the extraordinary variety of their design and function, reflecting the diversity of Shakespeare's plays as a whole. This is most apparent when a comparison is made between Shakespeare's soliloquies and those of other great dramatists, such as Calderon or Racine, Lessing or Schiller. Each of these writers developed his own distinctive types of soliloquy, yet in each case the soliloquies remained within certain limits. Thus it is possible to speak of the typical soliloquy as found in Racine or Schiller, or of the soliloquy typical of Senecan tragedy. We would find ourselves in a predicament if we wanted to speak in the same way of the typical soliloquy in Shakespeare, for there are not only the great reflections of the tragic heroes, Hamlet's ‘To be or not to be’ (III.i) and Macbeth's ‘If it were done, when 'tis done’ (I.vii), but also the comic one-man scene mounted by Launce in Two Gentlemen of Verona (II.iii) with his shoes and his dog; the catechism with which Falstaff dissects the concept of honour (I Henry IV, V.i); the reaction of Malvolio to the forged letter (Twelfth Night, II.v), in which the comic effect is enhanced still further by the eavesdropping; Lear's challenge to the tempestuous forces of nature (III.ii); and Prospero's summoning of the elves and spirits prior to his renunciation of magic (V.i). All these soliloquies are typical of Shakespeare, and yet they differ from one another to such a degree that no definition, however wide its terms of reference, could encompass what they have in common. Not only do they differ in style and structure, they also serve quite different purposes. Even if we were to postulate several basic types of soliloquy in Shakespeare, following the functional patterns found in drama before his time – as has already been done¹ – we would only partially succeed in assigning to them the abundance of individual soliloquies. For all such categories as expositional soliloquy, self-characterizing soliloquy, reflective soliloquy, homily and so on, turn out to be applicable in part only. They can be better applied to the shorter, less remarkable soliloquies, which tend to follow the scheme of traditional convention more closely. What we think of as Shakespeare's great soliloquies can hardly be classified in this way, for in them, if we do look for these basic types, we find several at a time, interrelated, and the decisive factor is in any case not the type, or pattern, but what transcends it.

Nevertheless, when Shakespeare began to write his plays he found soliloquies as part of the established tradition². In this area, as elsewhere, it becomes evident that Shakespeare's creative genius was not only in innovation, but that he was also an inspired borrower who took whatever he required from heterogeneous sources, in order to develop it further into new combinations.

Elizabethan drama was founded on the conjunction of the most diverse dramatic genres and styles. Mystery play and morality play, Senecan tragedy and euphuistic comedy, popular spectacle, pageant and masque – all these had given rise to a theatre which accommodated allegorical representation and realism, the use of rhetoric and colloquial speech. Dramatists employed the full range of so-called conventions in order to inform and instruct the spectators, to appeal to their power of imagination, but also to remind them of the fictionality of their theatrical experience, varying the manner of presentation from the most direct to the most indirect.³ The development of the soliloquy up to the time immediately preceding Shakespeare already reflects the diversity of this expansive dramatic tradition.

Today we tend to associate the soliloquy primarily with meditation and the expression of emotion, with introspection and with what Matthew Arnold called ‘the dialogue of the mind with itself’.⁴ Most of the reference works also provide us with a definition of this sort, tracing it back to St Augustine, who is said to have coined the word soliloquium. Yet in pre-Shakespearean drama it was only occasionally used for purposes which had to do with reflection or inner conflict; more often it fulfilled the function of chorus, of ‘suprapersonal’ utterance, of exhortation, of clarification of the plot, above all of exposition, looking both backwards and forwards, as the prologue and the chorus had often done. In a soliloquy a character could make himself and his plans known; at times he could also give an account of events off-stage, or introduce a character who was not to appear on stage until later. Frequently dramatists used the soliloquy for epic, narrative and descriptive purposes, that is to say for material which could not easily be fitted into the play in any other way. Soliloquies could also provide a running commentary on the intricacies of the plot, and be a means of linking one scene with another, facilitating the audience's grasp of what was happening. Often the address to the audience might seem to be nothing more than a stopgap, bridging the time between exits and entrances when the stage might otherwise have remained empty.⁵ It is clear that all this could not contribute to the dramatic effectiveness of the soliloquy. Time and again one recognizes the striving for clarification which characterized the mode of presentation and the style and language of the pre-Shakespearean drama, and which can still be discerned in Shakespeare's early plays.

The soliloquy of pre-Shakespearean drama was regularly addressed directly to the audience, forging a link between them and the stage. With the same nonchalance as is displayed by the biblical mystery plays of the Middle Ages and, indeed, by popular drama of all eras, the actors speak to the audience repeatedly during the play and take them into their confidence, making them privy to the entanglements which are to follow.

This direct address of the audience is important for the understanding of Shakespeare's soliloquies. The open stage protruding right into the pit, with the audience on three sides, favoured close contact, even intimacy, and a secret understanding between the audience and the soliloquizing actor⁶ who was able to project his emotions by means of gestures, physiognomy and stage business. To quote J.R. Brown: ‘the actors did not address the audience as if it were in another world. There was a reciprocal relationship; the audience could participate in the drama as easily as the actors could share a joke or enlist sympathy’.⁷

This stage practice is often taken into consideration in modern Shakespeare productions, although the great soliloquies have sometimes been performed quite differently, in such a way as to suggest that the actor is talking to himself alone, oblivious of everything around him.⁸ In this connection it is worth noting that John Barton, one of the Royal Shakespeare Company's leading producers, when asked whether such a speech should be spoken to oneself or shared with the audience, gave the answer: ‘I personally believe that it's right ninety-nine times out of a hundred to share a soliloquy with the audience. ’⁹

Words that were addressed to an Elizabethan audience in this way were felt to be true, to have a higher degree of objective validity than speeches exchanged between characters. Thus the soliloquy has with some justification been said to have contributed to the force of conviction, to the veracity and credibility of the Elizabethan theatre. However, with Shakespeare another question becomes relevant, namely, to what extent does a soliloquy now also give expression to a false or distorted self-image, to an element of self-deception, or even a deliberate attempt to deceive others? This has been discussed time and again in Shakespeare criticism.

To what extent are the conventions and functions associated with the soliloquy, as outlined in the preceding paragraphs, continued in Shakespeare? What is there in the soliloquies that can be traced back to earlier dramatic tradition, and what is there that is different? The following chapters will offer some suggestions on that score, although our study is not primarily devoted to historical or comparative investigations. In brief – and therefore without sufficient differentiation – it may be said that several functions which had previously been fulfilled by the soliloquy, have in Shakespeare been ingeniously assigned to the dialogue, and tend to merge less obtrusively with other elements of dramatic representation. The epic and narrative passages which often dominated the pre-Shakespearean soliloquies may thus appear less obtrusive and may be fitted into the appropriate dramatic situation. Material of an informative or instructive kind, or general observations, which were communicated very directly in pre-Shakespearean soliloquies, are subtly interwoven into successive scenes in Shakespeare's plays. Instead of being static interruptions or ‘insets’ – comparable to the set speeches of Senecan tragedy¹⁰ – Shakespeare's soliloquies became an organic part of his dramatic compositions, and this process began early on. It becomes apparent also that the instinctive dramatist in Shakespeare sensed early on the latent possibilities of dramatization within the soliloquy, of the process whereby monologue becomes dialogue, the speaker being split into selves which are in conflict with one another. Much of what distinguishes Shakespeare's soliloquies from those of his predecessors may be attributed to this process of dramatization, a skill which he developed gradually. The effectiveness of this technique is enhanced by what T.S. Eliot has called ‘the attitude of self-dramatization assumed by some of Shakespeare's heroes’¹¹, for several of Shakespeare's characters are of an extrovert, histrionic disposition, and enjoy speaking of themselves as of another self.

Another phenomenon is revealed to us in gradual stages: Shakespeare increasingly discovers the aptness of the soliloquy as a mode of human expression, treating it as a necessary supplement to dialogue, not just as a useful, or even indispensable, dramaturgical device. Thus in Shakespeare we note these two concurrent skills: with great ease he makes such use of the traditional conventions as may suit his purposes, and with equal freedom he exceeds the bounds of these conventions, achieving new and original creative techniques which bear witness to an unprecedented understanding of human nature.

What is meant by ‘convention’ in this context? It means an agreement between an author and his public, an understanding that certain modes of presentation, in-tended to achieve certain effects, will be accepted. Convention can involve a process of simplification or abbreviation. It may enable the author to enrich the drama with perspectives and elements which could not have been included if adherence to the laws operating in real life had been demanded. Drama in itself, unfolding on the stage in front of us, presupposes our willingness to let ourselves be captivated by the fiction, and thus represents a convention. The bridging and the compression of time, the change of place, the disguises – these are only some of the dramatic conventions which we accept without hesitation.

One could, however, distinguish between permanent conventions of this nature, which have always been part of drama, and such conventions as may well be described as temporary¹², such as the use of verse, the personification of abstract qualities, or the inclusion of supernatural events and figures. For many centuries one of the conventions accepted without question was that characters on the stage should think aloud and talk to themselves, while such behaviour was regarded as a pathological deviation from the norm in real life. However, under the influence of neo-classicism and awakening rationalism, objections were raised to this stage practice, demanding that thinking aloud should be restricted to short exclamations at most. As early as 1717 the Earl of Mulgrave wrote in his ‘Essay on Poetry’:

First then, Soliloquies had need be few,

Extremely short, and spoke in passion too.¹³

Criticism, particularly of lengthy soliloquies, became more severe towards the end of the nineteenth century. Dramatists tried to make do without this convention altogether, or tried at least to motivate it realistically, as the expression of a disturbed mind, or as the largely unconscious words of a character half asleep or intoxicated. Thus the drama critic William Archer (1852–1924), who won fame through his translation of Ibsen's plays, was of the opinion that ‘a few broken exclamations under high emotion is all the soliloquy that strict art should permit, for high emotion does in many cases manifest itself in speech’.¹⁴ Archer's attack on the Elizabethan theatre, which he considered primitive and naive, was launched under the influence of naturalism, and it was not successfully refuted until the 1930s. Muriel Bradbrook was foremost among several English critics who insisted that the assessment of Elizabethan drama should not be made to depend on nineteenth century standards of dramaturgy¹⁵, but that the plays should be seen as ‘drama sui generis’. This encouraged greater understanding of the soliloquy, and theatricality became a decisive factor in its assessment. Indeed, for the modern playgoer, the question of the psychological prob-ability of a soliloquy seems far less important than whether or not it has the power of conviction and is dramatically effective. Moreover, contemporary drama has once more ceded great significance to the soliloquy – one need only think of monodramas such as Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape, where the text consists entirely of the soliloquy of a solitary figure (in itself of course indicative of the isolation of the individual and of his difficulty in communicating with the world around him), or of the lengthy soliloquies in plays by Shaffer, Pinter or Bond. Productions of plays set in a wide variety of styles and eras, such as we are used to seeing on the stage today, help to make us more sympathetic towards the idiosyncrasies of Elizabethan drama than our forefathers were a hundred years ago. What concerns us is not the convention, but the effect which the soliloquy has on us.

Indeed, when the audience or unprejudiced readers encounter one of the great soliloquies, they will sense that here something is finding expression which at this point in time seems so necessary and so convincing that no further justification is needed.

Under such circumstances we do not inquire into the conventions connected with the soliloquy. The soliloquy expresses something which has all the appearance of inevitability and credibility. In many cases we become aware of the fundamental truth that in seeing one character in conversation with another, we only gain a partial and inadequate knowledge of each; we long to know the real person hidden beneath this shell. Or again, we may recognize that something which has been building up over several scenes, without the exact details and intricacies having become quite clear, must be aired and clarified in soliloquy. In the great tragedies it becomes apparent in the soliloquies more than anywhere else that, concurrent to the sequence of outer events, there always runs a sequence of inner events, the one mirroring the other. It is with this in mind that Shakespeare lets his soliloquies confirm what the audience and reader already know, fulfilling at once the expectations of the audience and the demands of dramatic art.

Yet the weight of conviction and the particular impact of a soliloquy can never be explained by a single ingredient, but only by the simultaneous effect of several. The following chapters attempt to show the great variety of devices used by Shakespeare in this respect. A closer investigation of the matter soon reveals that the soliloquy ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• CRITICAL STUDIES
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 INTRODUCTION
• 2 SOLILOQUIES FROM THE HISTORY PLAYS
• 3 SOLILOQUIES FROM THE COMEDIES AND ROMANCES
• 4 SOLILOQUIES FROM THE TRAGEDIES
• 5 CONCLUSION
• NOTES
• SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY