Soliloquies Criticism
Soliloquies in Shakespeare's plays are complex, multifaceted dramatic devices that reveal the internal struggles and motivations of characters, while also engaging the audience. Contrary to the common perception of soliloquies as windows into a character's soul, many critics argue they serve to develop themes and deliver strategic insights into the unfolding drama, often using deception or misdirection. As noted by James Hirsh, these speeches are often overheard by other characters, adding layers of meaning to their delivery.
Shakespeare's most famous soliloquy, "To be, or not to be," from Hamlet, exemplifies this complexity, being interpreted as both a personal introspection and a calculated performance, as suggested by Linwood E. Orange and Hirsh. This dual interpretation underscores the soliloquy's role in exploring existential dilemmas and the human condition, as discussed by Harold Jenkins.
In Macbeth, soliloquies such as "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" are analyzed for their philosophical exploration of time and despair, with perspectives ranging from medieval to early modern, as detailed by Horst Breuer. In contrast, Anthony J. Gilbert views Macbeth's soliloquies as reflections of his psychological turmoil and moral ambiguity.
In historical plays like Richard III, as examined by Hugenberg and Schaefermeyer, soliloquies serve to reveal the character's inner ambitions and manipulative prowess, creating a complex interaction with the audience. Similarly, Dale C. Uhlmann and Marc Grossman explore the rhetorical sophistication of Prince Hal’s soliloquies as strategic revelations of character.
Across Shakespeare's oeuvre, soliloquies are pivotal in shaping character development and thematic depth, inviting diverse interpretations and continuing scholarly debate over their intended truthfulness and function within the plays.
Contents
-
Criticism: Overviews And General Studies
-
The Development of the Soliloquy
(summary)
In the following essay, Hussey traces the evolution of Shakespeare's soliloquies, from the early tragedies and history plays to the later tragedies, with particular attention to their function and syntax. Remarking on the development of these speeches from expository passages to communications of moral or psychological confusion, the critic discusses soliloquies in a number of plays, especially Macbeth and Hamlet, but also Henry VI, Part 3, Richard III, Julius Caesar, and Othello.
-
Shakespearean Self-Talk, The Gricean Maxims, and the Unconscious
(summary)
In the following essay, Gilbert employs a theory of the normative pattern of conversational practice formulated by H. P. Grice—a philosopher of language—to evaluate four Shakespearean soliloquies in terms of whether characters are speaking the truth about themselves and their actions, evading it, repressing it, or rationalizing it. Gilbert analyzes Claudius's “O, my offence is rank” soliloquy in Hamlet (III.iii) with respect to what it reveals about the king's resourcefulness and self-awareness as well as his cynicism; Hamlet's “How all occasions do inform against me” speech (IV.iv) with an emphasis on what the critic regards as its evasiveness and ambiguities; Macbeth's “If it were done” monologue (I.vii) as an honest communication of his fear of moral retribution; and Othello's “It is the cause” soliloquy (V.ii) as an expression of the Moor's self-deception.
-
Shakespeare's Soliloquies: The Representation of Speech
(summary)
In the following excerpt, Hirsh claims that, in accordance with accepted dramatic convention, soliloquies in Shakespeare's plays are direct speech acts, not interior monologues. He discusses numerous soliloquies and asides that are overheard by other characters, either onstage or offstage, with particular reference to the ones in Romeo and Juliet.
-
The Development of the Soliloquy
(summary)
-
Criticism: Individual Plays
-
Hamlet's Fifth Soliloquy, 3.2.406-17
(summary)
In the following essay, Bowers connects Hamlet's “'Tis now the witching hour of night” soliloquy (III.ii) with the prince's conduct in the closet scene (III.iv). The critic contends that in the second part of this speech Shakespeare purposely directed the audience to interpret Hamlet's subsequent confrontation with Gertrude not as a murderous assault on her but an attempt to convince her that she must repent her incestuous marriage to Claudius.
-
Hamlet's Mad Soliloquy
(summary)
In the following essay, Orange asserts that as Hamlet is delivering his “To be, or not to be” soliloquy (III.i) he is fully aware of Ophelia's presence and suspects that Claudius and Polonius, though not visible onstage, can hear his words. Thus the speech is not an introspective reflection, the critic argues, but a calculated strategy to deceive his enemies into believing that he is so mentally distracted that he is considering killing himself.
-
The ‘Now Could I Drink Hot Blood’ Soliloquy and the Middle of Hamlet.
(summary)
In the following essay, Charney calls attention to the cruel, even gruesome elements of Hamlet's soliloquy in Act III, scene ii. He argues that in this monologue Hamlet is chiefly concerned with dissuading himself from the impulse to kill his mother.
-
Soliloquy as Self-Disclosure: The Soliloquies of Richard III
(summary)
In the following excerpt, Hugenberg and Schaefermeyer consider the soliloquies of Richard of Gloucester in Henry VI, Part 3 (III.iii) and Richard III (I.i and I.iii) in terms of communication theory. They conclude that these monologues represent forthright speech that clearly reveals Richard's motivations, his goals, and his strategies.
-
Prince Hal's Reformation Soliloquy: A ‘Macro-Sonnet.’
(summary)
In the following essay, Uhlmann analyzes the structure and style of Prince Hal's “I know you all” soliloquy in Henry IV, Part 1 (I.ii). He suggests that Shakespeare constructed this monologue in the form of an extended sonnet to convey to the audience its significance as a revelation of the prince's true nature.
-
Hamlet: Revenge and Readiness
(summary)
In the following essay, Rappaport focuses on Hamlet's “Now might I do it pat” soliloquy (III.iii) that immediately follows Claudius's own soliloquy before he kneels in prayer. The critic reads Hamlet's monologue as an expression of the prince's pride, arguing that he does not kill Claudius at this moment because he is guilty of the sin of taking on himself the divine authority of saving or condemning souls. Rappaport also discusses Hamlet's other soliloquies and contends that the reason there are none after the sea voyage is because during this time Hamlet has learned to submit to God's will. The intention of this paper is, among other things, to resolve the interpretive dilemma critics have faced in trying to determine whether Hamlet is predominantly a secular revenge tragedy or a redemptive Christian tragedy.
-
‘To be, or not to be’: Hamlet's Dilemma
(summary)
The following essay is the text of a lecture delivered in Delhi, India, in December 1989. Jenkins offers a close reading of the “To be, or not to be” soliloquy, remarking on the development of its argument and its lack of reference to Hamlet's particular circumstances, and providing a useful summary of commentary on this speech over the centuries. Importantly, he relates the quandary Hamlet expresses—whether one should free oneself from human existence or endure it—to the play's themes of humanity's dual nature, both godlike and bestial, and the equivocal nature of revenge, which can be both righteous and sinful.
-
Hamlet and the Audience: The Dynamics of a Relationship
(summary)
In the following essay, Berry suggests that through Hamlet's soliloquies, the audience becomes, in effect, his psychological counselor, sympathetically accepting his perspectives on himself and other characters. In Berry's judgment, the lack of soliloquies in Act V reflects Hamlet's recognition that it is now time for him to behave like a man and replace complaints with action.
-
Asides, Soliloquies, and Offstage Speeches in Hamlet: Implications for Staging
(summary)
In the following essay, Charney emphasizes the dramatic context and function in Hamlet of speeches that are distinctly different from regular dialogue. He calls attention to asides that are expository, or didactic, or expressions of guilt; to the range of tone and emotions in the soliloquies of Hamlet and Claudius; and to the dramatic significance of the several instances of voices heard from offstage or beneath it.
-
The Adolescent and the Strangest Fellow: Comic and Morally Serious Perspectives in 1 Henry IV.
(summary)
In the following essay, Grossman reads Prince Hal's 'I know you all soliloquy' in Henry IV, Part 1 (I.ii) not as a promise to reform but as the prince's attempt to justify to himself his agreement to participate in the Gad's Hill robbery. At this point in the play, the critic contends, Hal is filled with shame and self-loathing because he knows his attraction to Falstaff's comic but shameless view of life must be balanced by a commitment to honor, duty, and a morally serious perspective if he is to develop into a responsible adult. Grossman also discusses Hal's abuse of Francis the tavern boy, seeing in this episode further indications of Hal's self-reproach and pangs of conscience.
-
The Splintered Glass
(summary)
In the following essay, Schiffer focuses on Richard III's final soliloquy (V.iii), spoken after he awakens from a sleep disturbed by the visitation of his victims' ghosts. From the perspective of Lacanian psychoanalysis, the critic compares this soliloquy with Richard's earlier ones, especially the soliloquy at the opening of the play (I.i); he concludes that whereas the first demonstrates Richard's remarkable confidence and single-mindedness of purpose, the final soliloquy reveals an incoherent, fragmented self.
-
Hamlet's Fifth Soliloquy, 3.2.406-17
(summary)
-
Criticism: Performance Commentary
-
John Gielgud: The Glass of Fashion
(summary)
In the following essay, Maher describes in detail John Gielgud's delivery of Hamlet's seven soliloquies in a 1936-1937 production staged in New York and London. In a narrative supplemented by comments from the actor himself, she relates the effects of varying tempos, speech breaks, gestures, lighting, and stage business on Gielgud's performance of these speeches, stressing that he spoke them as if they were communications with himself rather than with the audience.
-
David Warner: The Rogue and Peasant Slave
(summary)
In the following essay, Maher gives an account of a 1965-1966 Royal Shakespeare Company production of Hamlet that was directed by Peter Hall with David Warner in the lead role. This anti-establishment staging likened the politics of Elsinore to those of mid-twentieth-century Britain, the critic reports, and Warner's direct communication of Hamlet's soliloquies was an essential part of his and Hall's intent to involve the numerous young members of the audience in the play and help them understand it.
-
John Gielgud: The Glass of Fashion
(summary)
- Further Reading