CRITICISM

Andrews, Michael Cameron. “‘Foul Play’ in Hamlet.” Hamlet Studies 16, nos. 1 and 2 (summer and winter 1994): 75-82.

Connects Hamlet's lines at the close of Act I, scene ii alluding to “foul play” with his soliloquy earlier in this scene: “O that this too too sallied flesh would melt.” Emphasizing the Renaissance connotation of “foul play” as adulterous sex, Andrews posits that even after the ghost has appeared to him, Hamlet is more appalled by his mother's sexual misconduct than by Claudius's murder of his father.

Booth, Stephen. “Close Reading without Readings.” In Shakespeare Reread: The Texts in New Contexts, edited by Russ McDonald, pp. 42-55. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1994.

Provides a discourse on the seemingly “incidental” linkages between words and ideas in Shakespeare's plays that yield new significance and meaning. To explain his theory, Booth discusses how Lady Macbeth's “raven” soliloquy (I.v) and Edmund's “Thou, Nature, art my goddess” speech (King Lear, I.i) might be read.

———. “The Physics of Hamlet's ‘Rogue and Peasant Slave’ Speech.” In “A Certain Text”: Close Readings and Textual Studies on Shakespeare and Others in Honor of Thomas Clayton, edited by Linda Anderson and Janis Lull, pp. 75-93. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2002.

Parses Hamlet's Act II, scene ii soliloquy, explicating the syntax, logic, phonics, internal echoes, correspondences, and inversions of this speech.

Boris, Edna Zwick. “To Soliloquize or Not to Soliloquize—Hamlet's ‘To be’ Speech in Q1 and Q2/F.” In Stage Directions in Hamlet: New Essays and New Directions, edited by Hardin L. Aasand, pp. 115-33. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2003.

Compares the placement of Hamlet's “To be” speech in three versions of the play text—the First and Second Quarto and the First Folio—and considers the implications of these various placements and the accompanying stage directions with respect to the question of whether, as he delivers this speech, Hamlet is aware that he is being overheard by other characters. Boris concludes that Hamlet “stages” this soliloquy for Claudius.

Breuer, Horst. “Disintegration of Time in Macbeth's Soliloquy ‘Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow.’” Modern Language Review 71, no. 2 (April 1976): 256-71.

Focuses on the first ten lines of Macbeth's soliloquy in V.v, with its conception of Time as incoherent and fragmented, comparing it to Samuel Beckett's notion of Time as circular and repetitive. Breuer emphasizes Macbeth's hopelessness and alienation—the loss of identity he has suffered because he is not living in the feudal age, when Time symbolized order and stability.

Bugliani, Francesca. “‘In the mind to suffer’: Hamlet's Soliloquy ‘To be, or not to be.’” Hamlet Studies 17, nos. 1 and 2 (summer and winter 1995): 10-40.

Interprets the “To be” soliloquy as an essential element in what the critic views as Shakespeare's depiction of Hamlet as a melancholic. Bugliani regards the speech as a meditation on classical and Renaissance ideas about the conflict between reason and passion.

Carnovsky, Morris with Peter Sander. “The Use of the Soliloquy.” In The Actor's Eye, pp. 167-81. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1984.

Characterizes the Shakespearean soliloquy as a powerful concentration of thought and emotion that leads to extraordinary creativity and sensitivity, and that explicates the character's motivations for action. Carnovsky focuses on Hamlet, but he also alludes to soliloquies of Claudius, Juliet, Hermione, Theseus, Portia, and Shylock.

Clemen, Wolfgang. Shakespeare's Soliloquies, pp. 1-26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Outlines the many functions and modes of Shakespeare's soliloquies. Emphasizing the playwright's innovative adaptations of dramatic conventions and his introduction of realistic or naturalistic elements into these monologues, Clemen comments on the soliloquies of Richard III, Richard II, Brutus, the Bastard in King John, Macbeth, Hamlet, and Lear.

Hirsh, James E. “The ‘To be or not to be’ Scene and the Conventions of Shakespearean Drama.” Modern Language Quarterly 42, no. 2 (June 1981): 115-36.

Argues that Hamlet's “To be” soliloquy is not a private meditation but part of the prince's strategy to mislead Claudius into believing that he does not intend to exact vengeance on the king. Hirsh discusses this speech in relation to numerous other Shakespearean soliloquies delivered by characters who are aware that they are not alone as they speak and thus know their words will be overheard.

———. “Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies.” Modern Language Quarterly 58, no. 1 (March 1997): 1-26.

Contends that beginning with classical dramatists and up until the middle of the seventeenth century, playwrights employed soliloquies and asides as speech acts rather than interior monologues. It is anachronistic, Hirsh maintains, to describe any speech in the Shakespeare canon as a soliloquy—a term he claims was not in use before the advent of Restoration drama—or to treat it as an expression of a character's thoughts.

Maher, Mary Z. “Kevin Kline: In Action How Like an Angel.” In Modern Hamlets and Their Soliloquies, pp. 175-200. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1992.

Provides a detailed description of a 1990 production of Hamlet at New York's Public/Anspacher Theater that Kevin Kline directed and in which he played the lead role. Maher's commentary is supplemented by extensive explanations by Kline of his general intentions in this production and, particularly, his choice to deliver Hamlet's soliloquies as introspections rather than addresses to the audience.

McCown, Gary M. “‘Runnawayes Eyes’ and Juliet's Epithalamium.” Shakespeare Quarterly 27, no. 2 (spring 1976): 150-70.

Analyzes the syntax and structure of Juliet's soliloquy at III.ii.1-31 in terms of classical and medieval lyrics written to celebrate a marriage. McCown argues that Shakespeare modified the conventions of the genre to heighten the sense of irony and pathos in the speech.

McDonnell, William E. “The Shakespearean Soliloquy: A Problem of Focus.” Text and Performance Quarterly 10, no. 3 (July 1990): 227-34.

Reports on a study of sixty-one Shakespearean soliloquies in terms of their setting, the dramatic action that precedes and follows them, and their relation to the characterization of the speakers. McDonnell determines that a minority of those he evaluated might be shared with the audience and about one-third should be interpreted as self-reflective; but he judges that for the majority of these speeches there is no clear indication in the text whether they ought to be shared directly with the theater audience.

Petronella, Vincent F. “Hamlet's ‘To be or not to be’ Soliloquy: Once More unto the Breach.” Studies in Philology 71, no. 1 (January 1974): 72-88.

Reviews different critical perspectives on the “To be, or not to be” soliloquy and attempts to fuse diverse viewpoints. The speech is principally about life and death and self-destruction, Petronella acknowledges, but it does not indicate that Hamlet himself is suicidal.

Sachs, Arieh. “To Be or Not to Be: Christianity versus Stoicism.” In Studies in the Drama, edited by Arieh Sachs, pp. 291-305. Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes Press, 1967.

Assesses the dialectical nature of Hamlet's “To be, or not to be” speech, emphasizing the juxtaposition of religion and philosophy in the prince's debate with himself. Sachs contends that Hamlet regards human existence as brutal and worthless, and believes that suicide would be both noble and rational, yet his fear of eternal damnation prevents him from killing himself.

Schrickx, W. “The Background and Context of Hamlet's Second Soliloquy.” Modern Language Review 68, no. 2 (April 1973): 241-55.

Discusses Hamlet's “O all you host of heaven” soliloquy (I.v) with reference to the theme of revenge, maintaining that in this passage the prince acknowledges that vengeance for crimes on earth belongs to God. The critic compares Hamlet's willingness to yield responsibility for implementing justice with the way the protagonists of Titus Andronicus, Thomas Kyd's The Revenger's Tragedy, and John Marston's Antonio's Revenge pursue revenge.

Shaitanov, Igor. “The Prologue to Genre: Richard Gloucester's Introductory Soliloquy.” In On Page and Stage: Shakespeare in Polish and World Culture, edited by Krystyna Kujawinska Courtney, pp. 127-38. Krakow, Poland: Towarzystwo Autorow i Wydawcow Prac Naukowych Universitas, 2000.

Argues that Richard III's soliloquy at the beginning of the play that bears his name not only serves as a prologue to the dramatic action, it introduces us to both the protagonist and the theme of Time. Arguing that at one point it shifts from an impersonal recounting of historical events to a deeply personal revelation of Richard's inability to cope with the ever-changing nature of the present, the critic suggests that this speech also marks a shift in Shakespeare's development of complex historical and tragic heroes.

Skiffington, Lloyd A. “Shakespearean: Its Content.” In The History of English Soliloquy: Aeschylus to Shakespeare, pp. 71-98. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1985.

Maintains that while Shakespeare relied on the dramatic tradition of medieval morality plays to construct his soliloquies, particularly with regard to their functions as plot explanations and disquisitions on moral or philosophical themes, he was original in his development of the solo utterance as a means of revealing a character's motivation and intentions, and disclosing the clash of emotions in his or her psyche.

Velz, John W. “The Ovidian Soliloquy in Shakespeare.” Shakespeare Studies 18 (1986): 1-24.

Evaluates several Shakespearean soliloquies in light of meditative speeches about the conflict between love and honor in Ovid's Metamorphoses. In his analysis of the way Shakespeare's soliloquies express self-questioning, rationalization, and honesty, Velz focuses on the monologues of Tarquin in The Rape of Lucrece and Angelo in Measure for Measure.

Weil, Jr., Herbert S. “‘I Know You All’: Possible Assaults upon and Invitations to the Audience by Shakespeare's Characters.” In The Elizabethan Theatre IX, edited by G. R. Hibbard, pp. 169-85. Port Credit, Ont.: P. D. Meany, 1981.

Considers a number of speeches by Shakespeare's characters—including soliloquies, asides, and epilogues—that might be delivered as direct addresses to the audience. Weil regards some of these as occasions when the dramatist, through the actors, appeals for the spectators' imaginative engagement in the experiences of the characters and invites them to relate these words and emotions to their own lives.