Full text of "The soliloquies of Shakespeare; a study in technic"

See other formats

|00
•CN

•CD

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH

THE SOLILOQUIES OF SHAKESPEARE

COLUMBIA

UNIVERSITY PRESS

SALES AGENTS

NEW YORK :

LEMCKE & BUECHNER
30-32 WEST 27TH STREET

LONDON :

HENRY FROWDE
AMEN CORNER, E.G.

TORONTO :

HENRY FROWDE
25 RICHMOND STREET, W.

THE SOLILOQUIES OF SHAKESPEARE

A STUDY IN TECHNIC

MORRIS LEROY ARNOLD, Ph.D.

THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

1911
All rights reserved

Printed from type October, 1911

7S4914,

C VERSION
AVAILAitf

PRESS or

THE NEW ERA PR.NT.N6 COKPAUT

LANCASTER. PA.

This Monograph has been approved by the Department of Eng
lish in Columbia University as a contribution to knowledge worthy
of publication.

A. H. THORNDIKE,

Secretary.

PREFACE

To add another volume to the already overflowing library of
Shakespearean criticism requires a word of apology. In de
fense of this study as a "contribution to knowledge," may I
preface a brief plea — my conviction after four years' investiga
tion of the subject?

In the first place, this, so far as I know, is the only collective
study of all of Shakespeare's soliloquies. Again, with sur
prisingly few exceptions, this is the only technical examination
of any of Shakespeare's soliloquies. Finally, although the
soliloquy as a convention has been frequently treated of late
years in some valuable magazine articles at home and some
lengthy monographs abroad, this discussion really adds to our
knowledge of the soliloquy. There is a new treatment, I be
lieve, of the following topics : ( I ) definition of the soliloquy ;
(2) the data of Chapter II; (3) the expository soliloquy as a
means of identification and disguising; (4) the soliloquy as an
explanation of accompanying "business," — such as sleep, sui
cide and death, — as an accompaniment of an entrance and of
an exit, and as the " unconscious entrance " ; (5) the classifica
tion and analysis of Shakespeare's comic soliloquies, showing
their relation to conventional types; and (6) the collective
study of Shakespeare's tragic soliloquies as revelations of
thought and feeling, and, in particular, these aspects of the
convention, — the apology for the introspective soliloquy, text
ual indications of introspection, the setting of the introspective
soliloquy, and the " trance " ; also, the evolution of the moraliz
ing in Shakespeare's soliloquies, and the classification of the
passions depicted by Shakespeare's soliloquizers. Notwith
standing the analytical method of this investigation, I trust that
I have not entirely failed to " rise to the height of this great
argument."

Whatever merit this dissertation may have is due in no small
degree to the friendly criticism of the members of the English
department of Columbia University. I am particularly grate-

viii

ful to Professor A. H. Thorndike, to whom may be attributed
in large measure the inception and development of the theme,
to Professor W. W. Lawrence, to whose scholarly suggestions
are due countless details which would otherwise have been
omitted, to Professor W. P. Trent, whose kindly interest has
been very helpful, and to Professor Brander Matthews, whose
private library and whose broad knowledge of the subject have
both been generously placed at my service. Moreover, I can
not refrain from mentioning my indebtedness to the many
helpful suggestions of the Professors of Comparative Litera
ture of Columbia University, and also to representatives of
other departments of Columbia University, the University of
Minnesota and Hamline University.

M. LER. A.

HAMLINE UNIVERSITY,
March 23, 1911.

CONTENTS

A GENERAL VIEW OF THE SOLILOQUY:
ITS ORIGIN, NATURE, DEVELOPMENT AND DISAPPEARANCE

The monologic origin of the drama — The soliloquy distinguished from
other monologs — Definition of the soliloquy — The apart distin
guished from the soliloquy-^The origin and development of the
^soliloquy — The disappearance* of the soliloquy — Criticism of the
soliloquy's length — Defence of the emotional soliloquy — The solil
oquy a temporary convention — Dual meaning of the soliloquy as
a convention — Classification of soliloquies — Scope of the investi
gation i

THE NUMBER, SOURCES AND CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
OF SHAKESPEARE'S SOLILOQUIES

Number 24

Sources : Holinshed and Halle — Plutarch — Dramas — Hamlet — Miscel
laneous TT77 26

Chronological development, traced in six periods 41

III

THE SHAKESPEAREAN SOLILOQUY A MEANS OF EXPOSITION

Initial exposition — Identification — Disguising — Characterization — Vil
lainy — Narration — Critical Comment 47

THE SHAKESPEAREAN SOLILOQUY AN ACCOMPANIMENT OF
THE ACTION

Miscellaneous " business " — Sleep — Death — Suicide — The entrance solil
oquy — The link — The exit soliloquy — The overheard soliloquy — The
structural soliloquy as a convention 73

V
SHAKESPEARE'S USE OF THE COMIC MONOLOG

The clown — The drunkard — The fantastic — The cuckold — The rogue —
The braggart — The cynic — Faulconbridge — >Falstaff — Launcelot
Gobbo — Malvolio — Benedick — Conclusion 101

VI
THE REVELATION OF THOUGHT AND FEELING

The apology for the introspective soliloquy — The apostrophe — The prayer
— Textual indications of introspection — The setting of the intro
spective soliloquy — Moralizing — The workings of conscience — The
debate — The trance — The depiction of grief, love, jealousy, revenge,
hatred and fear — The significance of the Shakespearean soliloquy.. 133

THE SOLILOQUIES OF SHAKESPEARE: A
STUDY IN TECHNIC

CHAPTER I

A GENERAL VIEW OF THE SOLILOQUY: ITS ORIGIN, NATURE,
DEVELOPMENT AND DISAPPEARANCE

Until recently, nearly all the dramas of the world have con
tained soliloquies. Usually these speeches may be extracted
from their environment and regarded as distinct literary
achievements, expressing a philosophical truth, a psychological
struggle, a humorous idea, or a short story tragic, romantic or
comic; and, moreover, the same speeches generally serve as
links in the chain of plot and characterization. Thus it is
evident that the soliloquy is both a unit and a part of the
whole, and in this dual aspect it lends itself to investigation.

Again, the historical significance of the soliloquy as a factor
in the development of playmaking has been commensurate
with its intrinsic literary merits. The soliloquy has grown
up with the drama from its beginnings, and, indeed, a near
relation, the monolog, seems to have been largely instrumental
in giving birth to the drama.

Theories regarding the origins of literary species are to a
certain extent conjectural ; but it seems a plausible hypothesis1
that, long before there was a formal drama in Greece, one of
the youths among those who were dancing and singing hymns
in honor of Dionysos, sprang upon a sacrificial table and
harangued his fellows or indulged in ecstatic prayer. The
harangue often occurs in the parabasis of the comedies of
Aristophanes and occasionally in the monologs of Plautus and
Terence. Except that these Roman monologists directly ad
dress the audience, their remarks do not differ essentially from
the comic soliloquies in the same pieces. Thus is evidenced a

1 A. E. Haigh, The Attic Theater, p. 6, note 4 ; p. 256.
2 1

certain parallelism between the soliloquy of classic comedy and
the primitive monolog addressed to the audience.

Likewise, the prayer of the hypothetical predecessor of
Thespis becomes the most prominent kind of soliloquy in
classic tragedy. Indeed, as a whole, Greek tragedy appears
monologic rather than dialogic, owing to the length of the
speeches and the restricted number of actors. It seems fairly
certain that Greek drama began with one actor, introduced,
it is said, by Thespis in 535 B.C.2 Then in the monolog ap-,
peared dialog, producing the form which is known as drama;
and in the dialog there appeared monolog, similar to the early
type, but, by virtue of its new position and function, rechris-
tened soliloquy.

From this brief discussion of the possibly monologic origin
of classic tragedy and comedy, it is evident that all soliloquies
are monologs, but that monologs are not necessarily soliloquies.
Since the soliloquy is an integral part of the drama, it must
be differentiated from the prolog and the epilog, as well as
the monologic entertainment complete in itself. Nevertheless,
there is an intimate relationship between these forms: the
soliloquy opening a play is often prologicjrj its expository jpur-
_pose; th^r^r^_rare_histances of a soliloquy_c^ncliidin^_a_ piece
"an? merging into an epilog ; and, as we have observed, isolated
monologs and those addressing an audience during the action
of a piece are closely associated with soliloquies. How, then,
does the soliloquy differ from other monologs? The answer
involves the definition of the soliloquy.

St. Augustine coined the word in Latin, soliloquium* evi
dently from solus and loqui; hence used by Augustine as a
talking to oneself. The English version preserves the root
idea; the soliloquy is a speaking alone. When a character,
during the course of a drama, is actually alone upon the stage
and his speech implies that he believes himself alone, then he
is soliloquizing. Even though other characters are present,
the speech may be soliloquy if it shows complete isolation and
oblivion to surroundings.

2.U. s., p. 15.

8 W. W. Skeat, Etymological Dictionary, p. 572.

In brief, the soliloquy is an integral part of the drama which
consists of a speaking alone. It is therefore apparent that
any form of monologic address to the audience — such as the
prolog, epilog and choral interlude — is not a soliloquy, since
the monologist who harangues the public, cannot perforce
consider himself alone.

There is, however, a monolog which is an integral part of
the drama, but which nevertheless may be distinguished from
the soliloquy, — namely, the little speech commonly known as
the "aside." In order to avoid confusion with the dialogic
" aside," we shall follow Dr. Hennequin4 in styling this monolog
the " apart." It must be admitted that the distinction between
the apart and the soliloquy is a fine one, and indeed Mr. Paull5
goes so far as to assert that there is no distinction whatever.
Let us remember that the soliloquy is a speaking alone: in
other words, the soliloquizer believes himself alone, assumes
himself alone, or at least completely forgets that he is not
alone. The speaker of the apart, on the other hand, never
for a moment forgets the proximity of others. When Caesar
requests Trebonius to be near him, the latter replies,

" Caesar, I will ; (apart) and so near will I be,
That your best friends shall wish I had been further" (II, 2, 124-125).*

There are very few conversant with theatrical matters who
would style this speech a soliloquy. The reason is evident;
Trebonius is aware of Caesar's presence, and consequently he
does not believe himself alone.

The actor who speaks an apart must resort to some trick
of delivery, such as eyeing the object of his remarks while
muttering as though fearful of being overheard, else facing
the audience and blandly taking them into his confidence. In
other words, the dramaturgic artifice needs to be supplemented

* The Art of Playwright ing, p. 152. See also article by the same author in
the Forum, Feb., 1890, Vol. VIII, p. 711.

5 " Dramatic Convention with Special Reference to the Soliloquy," by
H. M. Paull, Fortnightly Review, May, 1899, p. 863 ff.

8 The line numbering is that of Shakespeare's Complete Works, edited by
Professor W. A. Neilson, who follows the Globe Edition, with this exception,
that he numbers the lines of prose as well as of verse.

by histrionic artifice. Accordingly, Hamlet's "A little more
than kin, and less than kind" (i, 2, 65) and the "Still harp
ing on my daughter" of Polonius (II, 2, 188) are invariably
delivered with unction.

These speeches nicely harmonize with Dr. Hennequin's
description of the apart as "little more than a short monolog
something separate from the dialog itself, and yet a potent
factor in the total representative effect." That all aparts are
not marked by brevity, however, is exemplified by Shylock's
speech, beginning,

" How like a fawning publican he looks ! " (I, 3, 42-53),

and the Steward's remarks about Timon of Athens :

" O you gods !
Is yon despis'd and ruinous man my lord? " (IV, 3, 464-478).

Such instances suggest a somewhat similar situation in
"Hamlet" (III, 3, 73-96). The "Now might I do it pat"
affords the only real difficulty in distinguishing between the
soliloquy and the apart. The problem does not concern defini
tions but rather the interpretation brought out by the stage
"business." It is a matter of proximity of body as well as
of thought. If the speaker is so far removed that he con
sistently considers himself alone, even though he is reflecting
on another character present, the speech may be regarded as
soliloquy. The point involves a delicate discrimination be
tween subjectivity and objectivity, and must ultimately be
settled by the acting as well as by the text. I prefer to regard
Hamlet's speech as a soliloquy : Claudius has retired in prayer,
and Hamlet, while conscious of the kneeling king, is virtually
alone with his cogitations. It therefore seems best to class
the speech as soliloquy. This is the only doubtful case in
Shakespeare.

Ordinarily our definition clearly determines the distinction
between soliloquy and apart. In the aparts just cited, Shylock
and the Steward are not alone either in fancy or reality. Fol
lowing the convention established by Roman comedy, the
apart is almost invariably employed in connection with the
overheard soliloquy,— in "Love's Labor's Lost" (IV, 3), for

example, — and then the contrast between the two monologs
is evident, the apart being spoken by the eavesdropper, the
soliloquy by the person unconscious of the presence of others.

Having in mind what the soliloquy is not as well as what it
is, let us proceed to trace in general outline, its origin and
growth up to the time of Shakespeare. Necessarily this dis
cussion must be limited to a brief description of the salient
characteristics of the soliloquies of succeeding ages, while
matters of detail will be reserved for subsequent chapters.

We have already observed the monolog addressed to the
audience as a very possible factor in the origin of the drama,
and we have noted that there is an intimate relationship exist
ing between this type and the monologic part of a play which
takes no cognizance of auditors and accordingly is called
soliloquy; however, one is not justified in assuming a relation
ship of cause and effect.

Rather may the dramatic soliloquy be explained by the
tradition established by the lyric and the epic soliloquy. Fried-
rich Leo7 shows that the soliloquy is a conspicuous feature of
the earliest Greek poetry, — notably in Homer. Likewise, the
old English epic " Beowulf " is not without its soliloquy, — wit
ness the lament of the aged " keeper of rings " (11. 2247-2266) ;
while some of the oldest lyrics of our tongue are in the form
of soliloquies, — for example, " The Song of Deor," the mourn
ful meditations of "The Wanderer" and the strikingly
dramatic monolog which is known as " The Banished Wife's
Complaint."

Soliloquies are scarce in the beginnings of drama. Even the
"tragic triad of immortal fames" of ancient Greece have re
markably few, owing to the fact that speeches which would
otherwise be soliloquies are addressed to the chorus, which is
almost invariably present. As Leo points out, Aeschylus has,
strictly speaking, only three soliloquies, Sophocles two, and
" only twice has Euripides removed the chorus from the stage

7 " Der Monolog im Drama : ein Beitrag zur griechisch-romischen Poetik,"
Abhandlung der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen
Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Neue Folge -Band X, Nro. 5, Berlin, 1908,
pp. 2-6.

in order to make room for monologs, — in the 'Alcestis' and
the 'Helena.'"8 To be sure, Euripides "doubly redoubles"
this number by opening thirteen of his dramas with soliloquies
revealing the exposition.

The soliloquies of Aeschylus beginning the " Agamemnon "
and the " Eumenides," and the speech by the protagonist near
the opening of " Prometheus Bound " are phrased as prayers
to the elements as well as to the gods. Sophocles, in the
suicide soliloquy of Ajax and the lament of Electra (11. 86-
120) further illustrates the theatrical power of the soliloquy
in the depiction of passion. Sometimes using the form of
prayer and sometimes frankly revealing passion, Euripides
differentiates one type as a dramaturgic expedient, the initial
exposition soliloquy, which recurs so frequently that it prac
tically constitutes a law of his composition.

Seneca continues the tradition of the exposition soliloquy,
which, in some cases, seems differentiated as the prolog, —
notably in the opening monologs of " Hercules Furens,"
" Thyestes " and "Troades," speeches assigned to propaedeutic
characters who make no other appearance during the action.
Unlike the Euripidean " Medea," the Senecan tragedy opens
with a soliloquy by the protagonist, in the form of an im
passioned prayer to the gods for vengeance. The soliloquy of
the Nurse, beginning the fourth act of the piece, creates an
atmosphere of horror by aid of various rhetorical devices fre
quent in Seneca, allusions mythological, historical, geograph
ical, metaphorical and hyperbolical. The frenzied incanta
tion of Medea which follows is virtually a soliloquy, although
the Nurse stands by during the rapt utterance. Again, at the
opening of the second act of "Agamemnon," Clytemnestra
deliberately meditates a career of licentiousness, — a speech
truly a soliloquy, although the Nurse interrupts by asking the
cause of her mistress's silent ("tacita") brooding. The pres
ence of the confidant, however, prevents many soliloquies in
Seneca : no matter how long or introspective the monolog, it is,
as a rule, addressed to a nurse, a messenger, or some other
character. The arbitrary confidant soon disappears in English

"U. s., pp. 9, 12, 33.

drama, — a fact which accounts for the increased number of
soliloquies in our tragedy: omit the confidant from Senecan
dialog, and there remains pure soliloquy.

The presence of chorus and confidant, then, explains the
small number of soliloquies in dassic tragedy. Nevertheless,
each of the writers of Greek tragedy has left us two or three
soliloquies of power. No direct influence of these soliloquies
can be traced in the early drama of England, but the indirect
influence, through the medium of Seneca, is considerable.

An equally pervasive influence is exerted by the soliloquies
of classic comedy. Notwithstanding the chorus in Aristoph
anes, there are several soliloquies in his pieces, the conspicu
ous ones occurring at the openings of the "Acharnians," the
"Clouds," " Lysistrata," "Plutus" and the " Ecclesiazusae."
The last named is notable as being a burlesque of the grand
style of the Euripidean exposition soliloquy.

The absence of the chorus in the comedies of Plautus and
Terence helps to explain the numerous soliloquies, long and
short, which introduce, link and conclude the episodes. In
deed, the interspersed soliloquies are essential in the action.
They invariably consist of spirited comments on the intrigue,
by way of summarizing or plotting, thus serving either to
accentuate the ludicrous situation or to complicate it. Further,
so highly wrought is the convention that various artificial
varieties of the soliloquy, such as the overheard soliloquy9 and
the feigned soliloquy9 with interspersed aparts, add a novel
interest to the imbroglio.

On the other hand, as one might expect, the soliloquies of
the English miracle and mystery plays are conspicuously lack
ing in artifice. As a rule, they are short and infrequent. On
the whole, the most characteristic soliloquy of this first period
of development is the serious narrative revealing the situation at
the opening. It is often crude in its straightforward methods of
story-telling and of self-identification. Sometimes it is like the
opening of Greek tragedy in that it assumes the form of prayer,
and on rare occasions during the action, there are isolated
lamentations not dissimilar to those of the classics. There are
9 See below, pp. 90, 95.

a very few soliloquies of distinction,— notably those whimsic
ally naturalistic revelations of the characters of the three shep
herds at the opening of the Towneley " Secunda Pastorum,"
speeches which happily combine a depiction of human worri-
ments and sympathies with a comic insight which anticipates
the method of Shakespeare himself. To these might be added
Satan's frank avowal of villainy which opens the play on man's
disobedience in the York cycle. This soliloquy, with its note of
dramatic irony giving histrionic point to the crude plottings of
the villain, subsequently becomes conventionalized, and gains
its ultimate expression in the superb declarations of Gloster at
the opening of Shakespeare's " Richard the Third."

The self-revelations of the villain and the clown persist in
the monologs of the Devil and the Vice of the morality plays,
but the distinctive contribution of the morality to the develop
ment of the soliloquy is the moralizing theme. Nearly all of
the monologs in the morality plays, early and late, are
virtually little sermons, and that their didacticism is not without
effect is evidenced by the vast amount of moralizing in subse
quent soliloquies. In this respect also, the Shakespearean solilo
quizer gives the definitive artistic expression to the type. A
significant feature of the sermonizing soliloquy of the morality
play is its tendency toward introspection together with a dis
closure of the workings of conscience. Everyman's simple,
heart-felt summaries of the action between the various episodes
of the drama perform a function similar to that of the Greek
chorus, but they are without the volcanic passion and the
elaborate utterance of the classic protagonist.

Perhaps this instance, better than any other, illustrates the
vigor and the sincerity of the medieval monolog, crude though
it often is, before it inherits the animating fire and. the formal
vesture of classicism. Senecan influence, added to the rich
heritage of such soliloquies as those of " Everyman," made
possible the immortal broodings of Hamlet.

The fusing of classical and native traditions which culmi
nated in the tragic and comic soliloquies of Shakespeare was
well under way during the second half of the sixteenth cen
tury. The few soliloquies bequeathed to the Elizabethans in

that popular translation of Seneca, the " Tenne Tragedies "
(1559-1581), stress one aspect of meditation which becomes
the dominant note of the English soliloquy, — namely, that of
emotional introspection. The English miracles and moralities
testify that Seneca is not the source of this conception, but to
him may be attributed its elaborate expression. Thus the soli-'
loquies in those Senecan beginnings of English tragedy,
"Gorboduc," " Gismond of Salerne," "The Misfortunes of
Arthur" and "Jocasta" differ in quantity and quality from
their English predecessors. Not only are the new soliloquies
more numerous and much longer, but also each is distinguished
by proportion and literary finish. Indeed, as acting pieces,
these are deficient largely because of the undue prominence
given the soliloquy, — an obvious fault in the case of the
" Gismond of Salerne," which devotes an entire act to monolog
and contains a total of four hundred and fifteen lines of soli
loquizing. Nevertheless, although the work of five scholars
drawing on Seneca, Dolce and Boccaccio, these soliloquies
happily combine the elements of plot, introspection and theat
rical effect, and they establish precedents for the soliloquies
of romantic tragedy.

Meanwhile the influence of Roman comedy was producing a
metamorphosis parallel to that of Roman tragedy. The farces
following classical models which appeared in succession after
1550, "Gammer Gurton," "Roister Doister," "Misogonus"
and " Supposes," show a decided increase in the prominence
of the comic monolog in respect to length, function and style.
Now there appears the manipulation of the overheard soliloquy
by means of various Plautine and TerentiarT ttevices, but
particularly noticeable, combined with some touches of native
characterization, is the vivacious narrative monolog which
flourishes in Roman comedy. To be sure, the sprightly story
teller had made some feeble attempts as a monologist in the
person of the Vice, and he had attained a limited dexterity in
the hands of John Heywood, but the metallic brilliance of style
and the ludicrous insistence on the plot which distinguish the
numerous and lengthy soliloquies of " Roister Doister," as well
as the the few brief ponderings in Shakespeare's " Comedy of

Errors," are the heritage of Plautus and Terence,— an influ
ence which has persisted in the farcical soliloquies of succeed
ing ages.

Those popular mixtures of tragedy and comedy which throve
during the first period of English drama, "Appius and Vir
ginia," " Cambises," " Horestes," " Damon and Pythias " and
"Promos and Cassandra," exhibit a curious intermingling of
native tradition with Plautine and Senecan influences. Vir-
ginius has a number of pseudo-Senecan lamentations, not dis
similar in inflated mood to the mock heroics of Shakespeare's
Pyramus and Thisbe. Even closer to the spirit of those inimi
table burlesque soliloquies is Cambises' vein, as he informs the
audience, with the assurance of the monologist of Roman
comedy, that he is bleeding to death, and then, with rant as
turgid as that of Seneca, he gasps his last. Horestes, on one
occasion, ponders revenge with a suggestion of classical intro
spection, but the leading monologist of the piece is the Vice,
a survival of the medieval buffoon. Both the comic and the
serious soliloquies of " Damon and Pythias," on the other hand,
show a familiarity with the intricate mechanism as developed
by Plautus and Terence, in connection with the attendant com
plications of eaves-dropping and aparts.

Greater facility and variety characterizes Whetstone's treat
ment of soliloquies in his double tragedy " Promos and Cas
sandra." This piece, with which Shakespeare was evidently
familiar, seems to typify the technical accomplishment of the
soliloquy in the apprentice stage of English play making.
There are comic monologs and many aparts, with numerous
addresses to the audience. There are two soliloquies explana
tory of the disguise in which the speaker appears, a form of
meditation which grows frequent as disguise becomes prevalent
in romantic drama. There is the announcement by the Mes
senger, a classic tradition which, with the vanishing of the
chorus, assumes the form of the narrative soliloquy. There is
the revery of thanksgiving, as well as numerous lamentations
on love and death. Moreover, there is a sensational and dis
gusting bit of stage " business " in Cassandra's apostrophe to
the dead, when she kisses the head of Andrugio, brought to her

on a charger10 — a gruesome detail which does not recur in
Shakespeare's " Measure for Measure."

Shakespeare's immediate predecessors add very little to the
technic of the soliloquy as we find it in Whetstone. By 1587
the classical forms of soliloquy are fairly well established in
England, but thereafter occurs an even more significant con
tribution to the soliloquy's development: the introspection is
distinguished by a spontaneity characteristic of the Renaissance.
This is not the crude or ingenuous simplicity of miracle or
morality play, but rather a human quality harmonizing with
the vivacity of the monolog of classic comedy and the grandeur
of the monolog of classic tragedy.

No predecessor of Shakespeare does more for the spon
taneity and sincerity of the soliloquy than Thomas Kyd. The
ruminating of Basilisco in " Soliman and Persida," a play
assigned to Kyd or one of his imitators, contains a suggestion
of the comic veracity of the FalstafT soliloquy. Again, " The
First Part of Jeronimo," whether by Kyd or an imitator, con
tains, imbedded in the fustian, soliloquies characteristically
graphic and psychologically vivid. Here are depicted the mood
of battle, the grapple with death and the heart-beat of affec
tion. Throughout the close of the drama, Jeronimo is wont
to enter with a little soliloquy, the theme of which is his pride
in his son. As the tone of " The Spanish Tragedy " is some
what more inflated, so its twenty-nine soliloquies partake of
bombast, and yet they reveal thoughts and emotions with the
ring of sincerity. Extravagant as are the ravings of Hiero-
nimo, they seem animated by real suffering. His eight solil
oquies all have the burden of lament and revenge — a favorite
theme for meditation in the revenge of the day.11

The soliloquies of the two parts of Marston's "Antonio
and Mellida," Professor Thorndike has pointed out,12 are
similar to those of " The Spanish Tragedy " in abundance and

10 Six Old Plays, Vol. I, p. 42.

"• For a comprehensive epitome of these soliloquies, see " Hamlet and
Contemporary Revenge Plays," by A. H. Thorndike, Pub. of Mod. Lang.
Association of America, Vol. XVII. New Series, Vol. X, pp. 218, 144, 157,
179, 206.

12 U. s.,p. 157-

in reflective character. The difference lies in the increased
stress on the romantic, a note struck in the soliloquy with
which Antonio opens the tragedy. The sheer histrionic force
of Antonio's passion compares not unfavorably with the
abandon of Romeo (III, 3, 1-69). Antonio in his anguish
falls on the ground, crying,

" Mellida, clod upon clod thus fall.
Hell is beneath, yet heaven is over all" (Part I, IV, i).

But no matter what the tricks of rhetoric or stage " business,"
Marston preserves the appearance of introspection, even in the
tedious and vapid soliloquies of " Sophonisba."

But of all the soliloquies preceding Shakespeare, those
penned by Christopher Marlowe are most significant in them
selves, and in their bearing on the Shakespearean soliloquy.
There is nothing original in the subject matter: there are
laments and exultations, the cravings of ambition, and many
suicide and death soliloquies. In technic Marlowe makes no
actual contribution, but he is master of both technic and sub
ject. He adds finish, and he infuses spirit. Therein lies the
transformation. The opening exposition soliloquy of the Jew,
the closing death soliloquy of Dr. Faustus, — these are defini
tive. The one is calm, picturesque, characteristic; the other a
hoard of lurid images, fears, prayers, curses, accentuated by
the stroke of the clock and the lightning flash, and blended into
an emotional climax with the agonized cry, " My God ! my
God ! look not so fierce on me."

Marlowe focuses the attention on the leading characters
largely by means of the soliloquy. For example, except' two
supposedly funny monologs which are questionable as to
authorship, all13 of the soliloquies of " Dr. Faustus " are

13 The precise number of soliloquies in Marlowe is difficult to determine,
as indicated by some data which Dr. Rudolf Fischer has collected (Zur
Kunstentwicklung der Englischen Tragddie, p. 170). He assigns to the two
Tamburlaines and Edward the Second a total of thirty-five soliloquies — a
number with which I practically agree ; but to Faustus, The Jew and Dido
he gives a total of eighty-three, which is different from my count of sixty-
one. Dr. Fischer's deductions seem reasonable, that the political dramas,
as he styles the first group, are poor in monolog because here action outweighs

spoken by the protagonist, including the speeches which open
and close the drama. In Tamburlaine's " Black is the beauty
of the brightest day" (Part II, II, 4), "some holy trance"
does, as he prays, convey his thoughts away from his sur
roundings, rendering him completely oblivious to the throng
among whom he stands. This soliloquy is the very ecstacy of
grief, made poignant by the exquisite refrain, " To entertain
divine Zenocrite." The repetition of a word or line is a trick
which Marlowe often uses with subtle effect in his soliloquies.

Indeed his verse, always majestic, is most delicately respon
sive to the mood of the soliloquizer. Collier points out that in
" The stars move still " of Faustus, there is " a constant change
of pause and inflection, with the introduction of an alexandrine
and a hemistich to add to the effect."14 Says Lowell of Mar
lowe's art, " In the midst of the hurly-burly there will fall a
sudden hush, and we come upon passages calm and pellucid as
mountain tarns rilled to the brim with the purest distillation of
heaven."15 Such is Tamburlaine's query, "What is beauty,
saith my sufferings then?" (Part II, V, i.) Here we have an
aesthetic conception almost too fragile for words, and yet so
gracefully phrased that it seems not an articulate thought but
rather a longing of the soul.

It was Christopher Marlowe who consecrated the soliloquy
as a revelation of thought and feeling. Others of Shakes
peare's predecessors — Lyly, Peele, Kyd — attained this con
ception, but they did not so consistently and successfully main
tain it. Lyly gave a note of fancy, Peele of lyric rapture and
lament, Kyd of suffering and passion: Marlowe crystallized
them all, making the soliloquy an artistic unit. The revenge
tragedies and the domestic dramas of the day found channels
for the philosophizing soliloquy; and even the late moralities,

reflection, and that the " familiar dramas " are the reverse. Probably the
difference in count is due in part to a difference in meaning between the
German " monolog " and the English " soliloquy ; " but the fact is — and this
is the only reason for mentioning the divergence — that it is often difficult
to determine whether a speech of Marlowe's is soliloquy or not, because
of his tendency to insert meditation in conversation (see p. 161).

"History of English Dramatic Poetry, Vol. Ill, p. 131.

15 Old English Dramatists, p. 36.

popular entertainments and chronicle histories, often uncouth
and florid, added impetus to the soliloquy's popularity.

Through the fervid imagination of the Elizabethans, then,
aroused by the imposing monologs of the classics, the English
soliloquy, which began its career in the miracle play as a little
story of the plot or a prayer or a word to the audience, — this
trifling speech developed into a theatrical convention which
< Iinked""together the episodes of the piece and gave psycho-
} logicaf meaning to the action. Such is the soliloquy of Mar
lowe, and such, with even a more comprehensive reach, is the
Shakespearean soliloquy.

Shakespeare received from his master Marlowe an important
heritage jn this vitalized conception of Senecan introspection
as an illumination of the tragic crisis ; but, after all, this is only
one aspect of the manifold achievements of the Shakespearean

soliloquy. For example, Shakesj)ear£__sa manipulates the

serious meditation that it produces a profoundly comic effect.
Since the opening of the " Secunda Pastorum," there had been
instances of ludicrous introspection, a tendency somewhat
elaborated by the influx of classicism, but never boldly pro
jected until the appearance of the inimitable musings of Fal-
staflj Malvolio and Benedick.

Again, we shall find in our study of sources and species that
continental and classical plays, poems and novelle had given
the love soliloquy, always a favorite device in literature and
drama, a pronounced vogue just before Shakespeare, but it was
he whose wizardry individualized and epitomized the type in
the reveries of Romeo and Juliet. Marlowe himself is merely
the touchstone to Shakespeare's genius. In lyric grandeur
and passionate intensity the meditations of Tamburlaine and

/Faustus are unsurpassed, but the soliloquies of Hamlet and
Macbeth are distinguished not only by these qualities but also
by a^oignant__sincerity.

Shakespeare'suse~oTthe soliloquy is so comprehensive that it
appears to embody all traditions. The moralizing and the de-
giction^of conscience in.the moralityln&y. the philosophizing
and the introspection of Seneca are fused in his workshhop.
Likewise,jthe medieval buffon and Vice, the Plautine rogue

and bjaggartjhe knows at first hanc^ and.Jie_casts them into
nis melting-pot The details of the craft he learns from all
sides: Marlowe has a number of devices for producing the
effect of introspection, Plautus and Terence create comic situa
tions by manipulating the overheard soliloquy, — these and
many other tricks he employs freely, as we shall observe.
Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that he has adopted an
astounding variety of methods and types, the result invariably
harmonizes with the setting, and nearly every Shakespearean
soliloquy is the best of its kind — a masterpiece. No buffoon is
quite so funny as Launce, no didactic expounder of the
moralities so convincing as Brutus, no rogue of Roman comedy
quite so droll as Autolycus, no Senecan protagonist so passion
ate as Lear.

We have traced rapidly the general lines of development
of the soliloquy from its beginnings to the time of Shakespeare,
and we have indicated in brief the fusion of the medieval and
classical traditions in Shakespeare's soliloquies comic and
tragic, ornamental and utilitarian. But Shakespeare's accom
plishment is not imitation; rather is it a transformation so
complete that it merits being credited with the highest
originality.

Since his soliloquies are both comprehensive and definitive,
they have served as models for succeeding generations.
Neither in spirit nor in function have subsequent soliloquies
made any material additions, and indeed they have lacked, for
the most part, any suggestion of the vitality and inspiration
of the master. Nevertheless, pseudo-Shakespearean solilo
quies flourished on the English stage well into the nineteenth
century, and they still persist in closet drama. Toward the
close of the century the soliloquies abruptly dwindled in length
and number, and now they have almost entirely disappeared.

The disappearance of the soliloquy is a curious phenomenon.
Its abolition is not a new idea, since in 1660 Corneille remarked
that " the style has so completely changed that the greater part
of my late works do not contain a single soliloquy ; and you will
find none in ' Pompee,' ' La suite du menteur/ ' Theodore ' and
' Pertharite,' — nor in ' Heraclius,' ' Andromede/ ' Oedipe ' and

' La toison d'or,' with the exception of stanzas."16 It is signi
ficant that Moliere's practice harmonizes with Corneille's prin
ciple of abstinence: there are virtually no soliloquies in the
great achievements, "Tartuffe," " Le misanthrope," "Don
Juan," " Le bourgeois gentilhomme," " Les femmes savantes "
and the " Precieuses ridicules," while the author's most realistic
sketches, the "Critique," the "Impromptu" and the " Com-
tesse d'Escarbagnnes " have no soliloquies whatever.

A century later Cailhava testifies that soliloquies have their
critics who want to banish them utterly, and their partisans
who want to multiply them.17 In another century interest in
the existence of the soliloquy becomes wide spread, and we
find in England such sentiments as those of Mr. Archer, who
reserves the soliloquy for farce and poetical drama, asserting
that " the soliloquy should be almost entirely tabooed in serious
plays."18 Mr. Paull follows with a plea for the complete
abolition of the soliloquy in comedies of modern life, citing
Ibsen's usage, French criticism and recent curtailing of solil
oquies by Pinero and Jones.19

Ibsen is usually given credit for the disappearance of the
soliloquy in the acted drama of today. Mr. Henderson quotes
Ibsen's observation that his "League of Youth" is carried
through " without a single monolog, — in fact, without a single
aside," and the critic affirms, " In this respect, I believe Ibsen
sounded the death-knell of the monolog, the soliloquy, the
aside, and by his practice soon rendered ridiculous those
dramatists who persisted in employing these devices."20 Not
Ibsen but Edison is responsible for the disrepute of the
soliloquy, according to Professor Brander Matthews, who
points out that the electric lighting of the modern stage and the
picture-frame effect of the proscenium arch produce a realistic

lft Oeuvres, edited by Marty-Laveaux, Vol. I, p. 45.

17 De I' art de la comedie, by J. F. de Cailhava d'Estendoux, Paris, 1786,
Vol. I, p. 225.

ls English Dramatists of Today, by William Archer, London, 1882, p. 274.

Dramatic Convention with Special Reference to the Soliloquy," by
H. M. Paull, Fortnightly Review, May, 1899, p. 863 ff.

" The Evolution of Dramatic Technic," by Archibald Henderson, North
American Review, March, 1909, p. 439.

setting totally at variance with the arbitrary convention of the
soliloquy.21 Doubtless this is an important factor in the ex
planation; doubtless, also, there is truth in Mr. Fault's aphor
ism : " A convention that is questioned is doomed ; its existence
depends upon its unhesitating acceptance.22

Objection has frequently been made to the lengthy soliloquy,
— by a reporter of Pesaro in I574,23 by the Earl of Mulgrave
in his "Essay on Poetry" (1717), and by a host of critics of
the last half-century. Mr. Henderson voices the consensus of
modern opinion in his statement that " the soliloquy of a sane
man in actual life is of an exceedingly brief interval of time —
a few words or, at most, a few sentences. . . . Dramatic craft-
manship has today reached a point of such complex excellence
that the best dramatists refuse to employ so unworthy a device
as the lengthy soliloquy.24

The principle is not a new one. Nearly two centuries ago
the Earl of Mulgrave ordained:

" First then, Soliloquies had need be few,
Extremely short, and spoke in Passion too."25

The same requirements were made by the German critic
Gottsched in 1730 : " Kluge Leute pflegen nicht laut zu reden,
wenn sie allein sind ; es ware denn in besondern Affekten, und
das zwar mit wenig Worten."26 Ramler (1756-58) echoes
the sentiment, insisting that the soliloquy should be short, or if
long, that the speaker must be " in einer heftigen Gemiiths-
bewegung."27 Joseph von Sonnenfels (1768), the Viennese

21 " Concerning the Soliloquy,'-' by Brander Matthews, Putnam's Monthly, \
Nov., 1906, p. 180 ff. See also A Study of the Drama, by Brander Matthews, /^
p. 64. '

22 U. s., p. 870.

23 Geschichte des Neueren Dramas, by Wilhelm Creizenach, Vol. II, p.
287, note 2.

24 U. s., p. 440.

25 An Essay on Poetry, London, 1717, p. 308.
29 Versuch einer Critischen Dichtkunst, p. 598.

21 Einleitung in die schonen Wissenschaften, by S. K. W. Ramler, Vol. II,
p. 246 ff. For this and several other citations in this chapter, I am indebted
to the valuable monograph by Friedrich Diisel, Der dramatische Monolog in

theatrical censor and stage manager, is even more stringent
in his limitations; he repudiates the soliloquy except by way
of broken exclamations during the moment of passion when
"die Leidenschaft auf das Hochste gespannt und das Herz
gleichsam zu enge ist, den Inneren Kampf in sich zu fassen."28
Thus he anticipates the law enunciated by Mr. Archer (1882) :
"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."29

On the other hand, the lengthy emotional soliloquy has been
warmly admired by many critics. " I confess," admits the
Abbe d'Aubignac in his " Pratique du Theatre," englished in
1684, "that it is sometimes very pleasant to see a man upon
the stage lay open his heart, and speak boldly of his most
secret thoughts, explain his designs, and give vent to all that
his passion suggests ; but without doubt it is very hard to make
an Actor do it with probability."30 The soliloquy is most
likely to be appreciated and defended as a revelation of thought
and feeling. Says William Congreve in his Epistle Dedicatory
to "The Double-Dealer" (1694) : "When a man in soliloquy
reasons with himself, and pro's and con's, and weighs all his
designs, we ought not to imagine that this man either talks
to us or to himself; he is only thinking, and thinking such
matter as were inexcusable folly in him to speak." Says
Diderot (1756) : "L'homme ne se parle a lui-meme que dans
des instants de perplexite " ;31 and Nicolai (1757) elaborates
the thought, urging that the sorrowful, the angry and the
irresolute should be allowed to talk to themselves.32 In the
same year (1757), Mendelssohn eulogizes the soliloquy as an
outpouring of the soul.33 The " Poetique franchise " (1763) of

der Poetik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts und in dem Dramen Lessings,
Hamburg und Leipzig, Verlag von Leopold Vosz, 1897.

28 Quoted by Dusel, p. 15.

29 English Dramatists of Today, p. 274.
80 The Whole Art of the Stage, p. 57.

"Oeuvres completes, ed. by J. Assezat, Tom. Sept., Paris, 1875; Belles
Lettres IV, Chap. XVII.

32Friedrich Nicolai, " Abhandlung vom Trauerspiele," Bibliothek der
schonen Wissenschaften und der freyen Kiinste, Vol. I, p. 48.

^Gesammelte Schriften, 1843, Vol. I, p. 321 ff.

Marmontel boldly proclaims the naturalism of the soliloquy:
"il est tout naturel de se parler a soi-meme."34 Cailhava
(1772) maintains that it is natural for one to talk to himself
when he is greatly affected, and he stoutly defends the soliloquy
of Shakespeare's Timon (IV, 3) on this basis.35 Sir Walter
Scott (1822) is as emphatic as Congreve in his conception of
the soliloquy as " a conventional medium of communication
betwixt the poet and the audience";36 while Joanna Baillie
(1832) defines the soliloquy as "Those overflowings of the
perturbed soul, in which it unburthens itself of those thoughts
which it cannot communicate to others."37 5 The soliloquy re
veals the " most secret feeling and volition, "^according to Frey-
tag (1863) ;38 and Mr. Price thus pleads for the soliloquy:
" Drama is life and men make their most serious resolves in
solitude and alone."39 Coleridge, commenting on the revela
tion of the King's conscience in "Hamlet" (III, 2), suggests
that " even as an audible soliloquy, it is far less improbable
than is supposed by such as have watched men only in the
beaten road of their feelings."40 Delius loyally defends the
emotional soliloquies of " Romeo and Juliet," " Hamlet,"
" Othello," " Lear " and " Macbeth " ;41 and Kilian believes that
"the soliloquy is beginning to enjoy anew its literary prestige
undiminished."42 The consensus of modern opinion, however,
illustrated by practice as well as theory, is to the effect that if
soliloquies are permissible at all, they "had need be few,
extremely short, and spoke in passion too."

It is a well known fact that every art has its conventions.
The sculptor and the painter, as well as the dramatist, make
use of certain arbitrary contrivances contrary to nature but
necessary as media of expression, such conventions implying a

84 Second edition, Paris, 1767, Vol. I, p. 359 ff.

38 De I' art de la comedie, Paris, 1 786, Vol. I, p. 229.

86 The Fortunes of Nigel, Part II, Chap. V.

ST " Introductory Discourse " to Complete Works, Philadelphia, 1832, p. 23.

88 Technique of the Drama, translated by Elias MacEwan, p. 218.

89 Technique of the Drama, by W. T. Price, 1892, p. 127.

40 Furness Variorum Hamlet, Vol. I, p. 280.

41 Shakespeare Jahrbuch, Vol. XVI, p. i ff.

42 Shakespeare Jahrbuch, Vol. XXXIX, p. xiv.

tacit understanding with the patron of the art. No one has a
right to object to a statue because it lacks color, to a painting
because it lacks motion, nor to an interior setting of a play
because there is no fourth wall. These are permanent conven
tions inhering in their respective arts as long as the arts endure.
On the other_jlindx-iher£ are temporary-conventions, technical
devices which are accepted at one time and place and rejected
at^another.43 The soliloquy has been perhaps the most per
sistent of the temporary conventions of the drama. Thus for
centuries it has been a means of imparting information as to
the plot as well as to the secret convictions of a character, — the
assumption being that the soliloquizer is talking or thinking to
himself, although in reality he is addressing the audience.

Obviously, the soliloquizer talks to himself. That people do
talk to themselves is undeniable, but that young, healthy
persons audibly set forth their secret ideas at great length is
preposterous. That they do so in soliloquy, however, is en
tirely satisfactory so long as the convention is unquestioned,
because the convention is a matter of technic wholly inde
pendent of nature. It is a means rather than an end. By
aid of the soliloquy, the playwright informs the auditor what a
character would say if he were in the habit of talking to him
self.

Sometimes the dramatist goes a step farther, and uses the
soliloquy as a milieu for disclosing inaudible thoughts. In
that case, the soliloquizer is represented not as talking to him
self but as thinking to himself, and we pass from the frank
convention to one subtly suggestive. When this type of
soliloquy is used with full effect, as it often is in the great
tragedies of Shakespeare, the auditor forgets the medium of
speech, merely realizing that he is becoming aware of the
thoughts and the emotions of the soliloquizer. A similar illu
sion occurs in the reading of a novel, as Sir Walter Scott
pointed out,44— the only difference being that the soliloquy of

43 See The Development of the Drama, by Brander Matthews, p. 2 ft. ; also
" The Convention of the Drama " in The Historical Novel and Other Essays,
by Brander Matthews.

44 The Fortunes of Nigel, Part II, Chapter V.

fiction is transmitted by aid of the printed page instead of the
spoken word. When Hamlet muses, " To be or not to be," we
give no heed to the fact that he is talking, for our whole atten
tion is vibrantly sympathetic with the workings of his brain
and the feelings of his heart. The methods by which words
are used to symbolize thoughts and moods we shall consider
in detail (Chapter VI), but at the outset it must be borne in
mind that the soliloquy is a convention for the portrayal of
either speech or thought.

All soliloquies, then, may be classified as either verbal or
mental, the former occurring much more frequently than the
latter. The verbal soliloquizers are assumed to be talking to
themselves ; they often state the fact, and frequently apostrophe
is used as speech. The verbal soliloquy, particularly in
comedy, seems to take its rise in the direct address to the
audience, and sometimes a parenthetical word to the hearers
occurs in a speech which in other respects ranks as a comic
soliloquy, — for example, Falstaff's " O, you shall see him laugh
till his face be like a wet cloak ill laid up" ("The Second
Part of Henry the Fourth," V, I, 93-95).

The mental soliloquizer, according to the convention, is
thinking to himself. Often he refers to his thoughts, and the
matter and the manner of his utterance are far removed from
ordinary speech. The mental soliloquy is not necessarily intel
lectual, as it may be dominated by the emotions, but never for
an instant does it suggest a knowledge of the audience, an im
plication from which the verbal soliloquy cannot always be
absolved. To be sure, it is sometimes difficult to decide
whether the soliloquizer is talking or thinking, but the general
distinction is clearly made, and certain instances prove that it
was recognized by the dramatist. Shakespeare employs both
types. For example, Macbeth meditates (I. 3) in the presence
of his friends, and they do not hear him;45 while Malvolio
(II, 5) talks to himself and is overheard by others.

Another classification of soliloquies, based on an interpre
tation of the mood rather than of the convention, is made pos
sible by the fact that soliloquies tend to produce the effect of

45 For a detailed analysis of the passage, see pp. 145, 161.

tragedy or of comedy. Malvolio's revery is amusing, and
Macbeth's tragically intense; and, as a rule, comic soliloquies
are projected frankly as speech, while tragic ones suggest
passionate cogitation. The rule has a number of exceptions,
however, — notably Benedick's and FalstafFs musings, the
comedy of which is largely dependent upon their introspective
character.

Still another classification takes cognizance of the other two,
but with special reference to technic, and this arrangement we
shall strive to follow. We shall consider the comic soliloquy
and the tragic soliloquy, with their various subdivisions and
their various aspects of verbal and mental disclosure; and, in
addition, we shall examine a third class of soliloquies the dis
tinguishing feature of which is their utility in the mechanism
of the piece. They supply necessary portions of the story,
open, close and join scenes, and the like.

Accordingly, after a brief investigation of some data relative
to the quantity, sources and chronological development of the
Shakespearean soliloquy, we shall turn our attention to those
soliloquies which have a mechanical reason for being, sub
dividing them as exposition monologs and devices accompany
ing the action. Second, we shall study the comic monologs of
Shakespeare as such, observing the stock devices as well as the
original contributions of the master dramatist, a method which
requires some inquiry into the growth of types. Indeed,
throughout the discussion, comparisons with Greek, Roman,
Hindu and early English soliloquies — as well, occasionally, as
those of modern times — will be found of value in measuring
Shakespeare's achievement. Such comparisons will be of espe
cial interest in our investigation of the soliloquies of Shake
spearean tragedy. These, the culmination of Shakespeare's
genius in the depiction of solitary reflection and emotion, will
constitute the third and last division of our subject matter,
and we shall regard them as revelations of thought and feeling.

Shakespeare's soliloquies reveal the most intimately personal
and at the same time the most profoundly comprehensive
thoughts of his characters ; and they have the distinction — aside

from the few borrowings which xwe shall presently note — of
constituting the most original portion of his work. Moreover,

they are seldom mere anecdotes, philosophizings or lyrical out
bursts attached to a play by way of ornamentation ; but instead,
arranged to further characterization and action, they are fused
in the structure of the drama.

CHAPTER II

THE NUMBER, SOURCES AND CHRONOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
OF SHAKESPEARE'S SOLILOQUIES

The soliloquies of Shakespeare, extending over nearly a
quarter of a century, include practically every variety which
had hitherto appeared, long and short, comic and tragic, crude
and subtle. At first glance, the sequence and quantity of the
soliloquies seem to have little to do with their technical accom
plishment. For example, "Cymbeline," containing the
greatest number of lines of soliloquy of any of Shakespeare's
plays, follows in chronological order, " Coriolanus," which has,
with a single exception, the least number, and in other respects
the monologs of the two pieces are practically without points of
resemblance. Nevertheless, the mere quantity of Shake
speare's soliloquies has its meaning, especially today when
critical opinion is almost unanimous as to the approximate
order of Shakespeare's plays. Accordingly, we shall find the
following table significant in our study. The exact number of
soliloquies and lines is no more definitive than the dates, al
though the count has been carefully made. The fact is that,
in certain rare instances, personal opinion and interpretation
must determine whether or not a monolog is a soliloquy —
Hamlet's " Now might I do it pat," for example.1 In general,
however, a soliloquy is easily identified, and, moreover, the
following tabulation is of importance not as to exact numbers,
but as to approximate and relative values.

1589 ? Henry VI, Part I 1 1 9O

1590? Henry VI, Part II 12 221

1590? Henry VI, Part III 21 351

? Titus Andronicus 8 85

1591 ? Love's Labour's Lost 8 153

i59i-5? The Two Gentlemen of Verona 16 297

1591? The Comedy of Errors 7 62

1 See ante, p. 4.

1593? King John 5

1593? Richard III — 17

1594? Richard II 3

1594 ? A Midsummer Night's Dream 21

J595 ? The Taming of the Shrew n

1595 ? The Merchant of Venice 3

1596 ? Romeo and Juliet 20

1597 ? Henry IV, Part I 8

1598? Henry IV, Part II 7

1599 Henry V 7

1598-9 ? The Merry Wives of Windsor 16

1599 ? Julius Caesar 16

1599 ? Much Ado about Nothing 7

1600 ? As You Like It 6

1601 ? Twelfth Night 8

1602 ? Troilus and Cressida 10

1602 ? All's Well that Ends Well 10

1603 ? Measure for Measure 8

1603-4 Hamlet . . . 14

1604 ? Othello 15

1604-5 ? King Lear 17

1605-6? Macbeth 18

1607 ? Timon of Athens 1 1

1608? Pericles 7

1607—8 ? Antony and Cleopatra 9

1609 ? Coriolanus 4

1610 ? Cymbeline 24

1611? Winter's Tale 6

1612 ? The Tempest 5

1612? Henry VIII 3

245
79

237
78
4i

293

142
177
131
195

158
118
36
213
144
123

291
172
185
245

2IO

IOO

430

153

73
59

These figures show the great importance which Shakespeare
gives the soliloquy. Such different plays as "Cymbeline,"
" The Third Part of Henry the Sixth," " The Two Gentlemen
of Verona," " Hamlet " and " Romeo and Juliet " contain some
three hundred or more lines of soliloquy. On the other hand,
however, equally representative pieces, "As You Like It,"
" Coriolanus " and " The Merchant of Venice," have less than
fifty lines of soliloquy. Clearly the prominence given the
soliloquy is independent of the species of drama. In general,

the soliloquies are quantitatively more conspicuous at the be
ginning than at the close of Shakespeare's career. Evidently
there are numerous exceptions to the rule. "Titus Andron-
icus," "The Comedy of Errors" and "King John" have a
notable scarcity of soliloquies, possibly because the author was
remaking or adapting old plays and consequently saw the
benefits of condensation. "The Merchant of Venice" is so
full of stories that there seems no room for soliloquy, while,
on the other hand, " As You Like It " is so surcharged with
reflective and lyric elements that the author has wisely reduced
the soliloquies to a minimum. Here also he may have ob
served the fatally retarding effect of the lengthy soliloquies in
his source. Most extraordinary is the bewildering length and
profusion of soliloquies in " Cymbeline," at a time when the
playwright seemed to be systematically reducing his solilo
quies to mere mechanical devices for furthering the plot. The
many soliloquies of " Cymbeline," we shall observe, are due to
the author's departure to a new field, the " dramatic romance."
But the greatest numerical achievement, in respect to both
number and length of soliloquies, occurs when the soliloquy is
most profoundly introspective, — that is, from " Hamlet " to
"Timon," inclusive. This observation suggests a certain in
terdependence of the quantity and the quality of the Shake
spearean soliloquy. Indeed it is a fact that, with the exception
of Wolsey's farewell — which is probably not Shakespeare's —
there are no famous soliloquies in the pieces marked by a
paucity of soliloquy. The converse of the proposition is not
necessarily true, as the crude monologs of " The Third Part of
Henry the Sixth" prove, and yet the most perfect instances
of the Shakespearean soliloquy come not single file but in
battalions, — witness all the soliloquies of " Romeo and Juliet,"
" Hamlet " and " Macbeth."

Allusion has already been made to the sources of Shake
speare's soliloquies. The question naturally arises, to what
extent did these influence the dramatist? Is the soliloquy the
most original part of the author's work? A study of the
sources discloses some interesting answers to these queries.

The " Chronicles " of Holinshed, supplemented by those of
Halle, contain many hints for the content of Shakespeare's
soliloquies. In three instances of "The First Part of Henry
the Sixth," the kernel of the soliloquy is found in Holinshed,2
and others grow out of situations suggested by the chronicle.
In discussing the three parts of " Henry the Sixth," we are not
entering into the question of authorship, for, whether written
by Shakespeare or some of his contemporaries, or by both,
these soliloquies are, at all events, typical of the historical
drama at the time Shakespeare was beginning his career.3

The problem of the sources of the second and third parts
is complicated by the existence of the two plays, "The First
Part of the Contention of the Two Famous Houses of York
and Lancaster" and "The True Tragedy of Richard Duke
of York,"4 the soliloquies of which are very similar to the
Shakespearean ones. Each of the nine soliloquies of the
" Contention " has its counterpart in " Part Two," with the
same trend and many of the same words, but usually Shake
speare amplifies and embellishes. His three additional solilo
quies5 are ornamental rather than organic. The relation of the
soliloquies of the plays to Holinshed and Halle is as follows.
Slight material for two of Shakespeare's soliloquies and for
one of the "Contention" is found in Holinshed,6 and the
situations for three of Shakespeare's soliloquies and two of

2 1, 2, 173-176 founded on Holinshed, III, 591/2/5; III, i, 78-81, on
Holinshed, III, 597/2/14; III, i, 187-201, on Holinshed, III, 581/1/68.

8 It might be well at this juncture to state that we shall investigate all of
the soliloquies in the plays included by Professor W. A. Neilson in his
edition of Shakespeare's Works. Whenever it is presumable that Shakes
peare did not write the soliloquies — as in the case of all those in Henry the
Eighth, the first six in Pericles and five in Timon — we shall note the fact
in any detailed discussion of them. On the other hand, in the case of
" doubtful " plays such as Henry the Sixth and Titus Andronicus, Shakes
peare may or may not have written the soliloquies, and this fact must be
admitted at the outset.

* Printed in the (old) Shakespeare Society Publications, 1843.

"Ill, 2, 136-146; IV, i, 144-147; and IV, 10, 1-17.

'Ill, i, 330-383 — Contention, p. 38 — Holinshed, III, 632/1/63; V, 2, 66-
71 — Holinshed, III, 643/2/9.

the " Contention " appear in Holinshed.7 Likewise, in the case
of " Part Three," the majority of situations which make pos
sible the Shakespearean soliloquies, together with those in the
" True Tragedy," occur in the chronicle. In one instance, the
imagery of Shakespeare is suggested by Halle.8 The figure of
the ebb and flow does not appear in the corresponding soliloquy
of the " True Tragedy," a speech which is also without Shake
speare's lengthy moralizing on the shepherd's life. However,
the dexterity of Shakespeare's devices in the manipulation of
the overheard soliloquy and the explanation of disguise is evi
denced in the "True Tragedy." There too the smiling
damned villain proclaims himself with Marlowesque egoism.
Gloucester's elaborate soliloquy in "Part Three" (III, 2, 124-
195), an embellishment of one in the "True Tragedy," is
apparently the inspiration of the famous opening of " Richard
the Third," a soliloquy entirely original.

Six of the eighteen soliloquies of " Richard the Third " have
a basis in Holinshed, but, as in the case of the chronicle
sources of " Henry the Sixth," none of them are in the form
of soliloquy, unless we except the hint that Holinshed drops
(III, 755/1/45) that Richard's dream "troubled his mind with
manie busie and dreadfull imaginations." These " imagina
tions " are bodied forth in soliloquy in " The True Tragedy of
Richard the Third,"9 but it remained for Shakespeare to render
them as real as fear itself (V, 3, 177-206). No direct connec
tion can be traced between the soliloquies of the " True
Tragedy " and those of " Richard the Third," and yet there are
many similarities, indicating that Shakespeare was familiar
with the traditions of soliloquy clinging to the theme. Both
have an exceptionally large number of soliloquies — "Richard
the Third " sixteen, and the " True Tragedy " eighteen. Each
has many long soliloquies, the most conspicuous being by
Richard, who discloses his villainous ambitions and plottings —
as he does in the academical piece, "Richardus Tertius," for

7 IV, 10, 1-17, 18-25 and 82-90 — Contention, pp. 62-63 — Halle, 222
(Shakespeare's Holinshed, p. 283).

8 II, 5, i-io — Halle, 256 (Shakespeare's Holinshed, p. 306).

9 (Old) Shakespeare Society Publication, 1844, Vol. XXI, p. 61.

29
that matter. Richard of the " True Tragedy " soliloquizes,

" Methinks their ghoasts comes gaping for revenge" (p. 61),

which brings to mind the Shakespearean parallel,

" Methought the souls of all that I had murder'd
Came to my tent" (V, 3, 204-5).

But such an evidence of borrowing is tenuous at the best.

The soliloquies of " Richard the Second " and of " Henry
the Fourth" are quite independent of Holinshed. True,
Holinshed contains the situation for Prince Hal's soliloquy on
the crown,10 but the real origin of this soliloquy is evidently
the one by the Prince in " The Famous Victories of Henry the
Fifth."11 There, however, he makes no mention of the crown
which he carries off with him, and the audience would probably
lose the point of his exit. Shakespeare remedied the defect,
beginning the soliloquy,

" Why does the crown lie there upon his pillow ? "

There follows a long apostrophe to the crown, and still another
concludes the soliloquy. The difference of treatment illus
trates the transforming process to which Shakespeare sub
jected his sources. Likewise, except for two faint hints in
Holinshed, the soliloquies of " Henry the Fifth " are original.
The soul-searching soliloquies of " Macbeth " are not due to
Holinshed, unless it be in his remark, "The pricke of con
science (as it chanceth eyer in tyrants, and such as atteine to
anie estate by unrighteous means) caused him ever to feare
least he should be served of the same cup, as he had min
istered to his predecessor"12 — which seems the origin of
Macbeth 's soliloquizing,

" This even handed justice

Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice
To our own lips" (I, 7, 9-11).

" The pricke of conscience/' it is needless to add, is the well-
spring of nearly all of A^acbeth's meditations. It is only in

w The Second Part of Henry the Fourth, IV, 5, 20-47.

11 Six Old Plays, p. 343.

12 Collier's Shakespeare's Library, Vol. II, p. 64.

hints such as this, and never in the form of soliloquy, that the
chronicle may be said, in any sense, to give rise to the Shake
spearean revery.

Plutarch affords suggestions for soliloquizing a trifle more
definite than those of Holinshed. Six of the soliloquies of
"Julius Ceasar" have some basis in Plutarch, although none
of them have a soliloquy as a source. Plutarch does, however,
indicate the reflective character of Brutus. " But when night
came and he was in his own house . . . oftentimes of himself
he fell into such deep thoughts of this enterprise, casting in
his mind all the dangers that might happen"13 — perhaps this
was the starting-point of the soliloquies at the beginning of the
second act. Again, there is a hint of meditation just before
the appearance of Caesar's ghost: in the "Life" of Brutus,
" As he was in his tent with a little light, thinking of weighty
matters" (p. 136) ; and in the "Life" of Caesar, "being yet
awake and thinking of his affairs" (p. 103). "The Life of
Coriolanus " lacks even such feeble impetus toward soliloquy.
The only resemblance is a trifling verbal one. Coriolanus
soliloquizes,

" My love's upon
This enemy town. I'll enter" (IV, 4, 23-24).

Plutarch quotes Homer,

'"So did he enter into the enemies towne ' " (p. 169).

Plutarch's "Antony and Cleopatra," however, is a source
worth noting. Here for the first time in our investigation,
there is a soliloquy in the narrative which Shakespeare uses for
dramatic purposes. " Antonius believing it " (that Caesar was
dead) " sayd unto himselfe : what doest thou looke for further,
Antonius, sith spightful fortune hath taken from thee the
only joy thou haddest, for whom thou yet reservedst thy life?
when he had sayd these words, he went into a chamber and
unarmed himselfe, and being naked, said thus: O Cleopatra,
it grieveth me not that I have lost thy companie, for I will
not be long from thee: but I am sory, that having bene so
great a Captaine and Emperour, I am indeed condemned to

" The Life of Marcus Brutus," in Skeat's Shakespeare's Plutarch, p. 115.

be judged of lesse courage and noble mind than a woman."14
Here it is not the phraseology which Shakespeare uses, but
the occasion of the soliloquy and its mood. Thus inspired,
he transfuses the speech with the wizardry of his expression.

Shakespeare invariably betters his instruction, a fact strik
ingly evident when he adapts plays already containing solilo
quies. He discerns their weaknesses and proceeds to eliminate
them. The " Menaechmi " of Plautus has no less than eigh
teen soliloquies: Shakespeare omits the parasite and the old
man and consequently their long monologs. He neither bor
rows any soliloquy, nor does he have any overheard soliloquy,
although there are three in his Roman model. The lucid re
hearsal of the complications by the soliloquizer reflects the
classical form and spirit; but the scarcity and brevity of the
soliloquies for the purposes of farce, are characteristics pecu
liarly modern.

Again, in abridging and transforming the two parts of " The
Troublesome Raigne of King John" (printed 1591), Shake
speare omits his predecessor's soliloquies, except the one in
which Arthur leaps from the walls and dies (IV, 3, i-io).
This he preserves with only slight alteration and condensation.
The early plays contain two soliloquies by the Bastard, his
vigorous personality shining through rather stilted verse.15
Shakespeare's Bastard has two soliloquies which are satiric
masterpieces (I, I, 182-219; II, I, 561-598). "The Trouble
some Raigne" has three long soliloquies by John (pp. 273,
282, 287), and the Shakespearean piece two very brief ones
(IV, 2, 181 ; V, i, 25-29). Likewise, when Shakespeare
made his " Measure for Measure " from the two parts of
" Promos and Cassandra," he applied even more radical
methods of omission and change. Whetstone has a total of
thirty-nine soliloquies,16 Shakespeare seven.

In "The Taming of the Shrew," the author reverses the
process and increases the amount of soliloquy. With the six

14 Furness Variorum Edition of Antony and Cleopatra, p. 405. Cf. IV,
4, 44-49-

15 Six Old Plays, Vol. 2, pp. 239, 252.

18 For a discussion of these soliloquies, see ante, p. 10.

soliloquies of the old "Taming of a Shrew" (printed 1594)
may be contrasted the eleven of Shakespeare's. There is no
connection, except in respect to the serio-comic plottings of
Petruchio (II, I, 169-182; IV, I, 191-214), which'get their
theme and general treatment from a little soliloquy by
Ferando.17

As to quantity, the soliloquies of the old "Leir" (acted
1593) are similar to those of Shakespeare, but, aside from the
general apportionment of villainous plotting, ravings of Lear,
and comments of Kent or Perillus, there is no real basis of
comparison.

So the soliloquies of " Timon " may be compared with their
predecessors only along general lines. The probably academic
"Timon" (c. 1602) has six soliloquies, three of which are by
the protagonist, but it is only in the bitterness of Timon's
soliloquies, in addition to their conspicuous character, that there
is any similarity to those of Shakespeare. A much closer
parallelism exists between the soliloquies of Shakespeare and
Lucian, both in mood and content as well as details. Each
has two soliloquies of length in which Timon digs, discovers
gold, indulges in mock prayer and rails against mankind.

Thus it is evident that the chief indebtedness of Shakespeare
to previous playwrights is only in general outlines, assignment
to certain speakers, a theme, a hint, or a word. Shakespeare
may have a hand in the " Contention " and " The True Tragedy
of Richard Duke of York." Surely the soliloquies in these
and the corresponding Shakespearean pieces are strikingly
similar, and, in large part, identical. But if these are ex
cluded as sources, the only soliloquy which Shakespeare
directly transferred from another, and that with some altera
tion, is Arthur's soliloquy in "King John," a speech of no
interest, except as an explanation of a spectacular death.
" The True Tragedy of Richard the Third " gives the delirious
mood of the final soliloquy of Shakespeare's Richard, the
"Famous Victories" presents the situation of the "crown"
soliloquy, and "A Shrew" offers a motif for Petruchio's re
flections. Here the direct indebtedness to plays ends, and we
must admit that it is slight.

17 (Old) Shakespeare Society Publications, 1844, p. 28.

If we could examine the Kydian play on which "Hamlet"
is supposed to be founded, we might find a source of far
greater interest, but, instead, we must content ourselves with
conjectures based on the untrustworthy evidence of the seven
teenth century German redaction of the theme, and the notori
ously corrupt First Quarto. An examination of the ten brief
and crude soliloquies of "Der Bestrafte Brudermord "18 fails
to suggest many Shakespearean characteristics, although here,
as in our dramas, it is in monolog that Hamlet decides on the
play (II, 6) that the King, smitten by conscience, kneels in
prayer (III, i), and that Hamlet refrains from stabbing him
(III, 2). Hamlet's five soliloquies consist chiefly of the bald
statement that he will be avenged, although the last one (V, i)

ounds a deeper note of introspection: "Unfortunate Prince!

ow much longer must thou live without peace? How long
dost thou delay, O righteous Nemesis! before thou whettest
thy righteous sword of vengeance for my uncle the fratricide ?
Hither have I come once more, but cannot attain to my re
venge, because the fratricide is surrounded all the time by so
many people. But I swear that, before the sun has finished
his journey from east to west, I will revenge myself on him."
" In the reference to Nemesis," observes Professor Thorn-
dike,19 " in the excuse for delay, and the promise to revenge, I
fancy there are some faint hints of a soliloquy which in its
original form may not have been unlike those in the ' Spanish
Tragedy.' " Professor Thorndike points out that in the First
Quarto version of the fourth soliloquy, Hamlet is introduced
" pouring upon a book " " just as Hieronimo and Antonio enter
reading when they begin their soliloquies. The appearance of
this theatrical convention," he argues, "suggests that it may
go back to the early ' Hamlet ' and that the soliloquy may have
had an original form in the early play."20 The probabilities
are strong that Shakespeare revised some early soliloquies
when he wrote the drama of which the First Quarto is the
imperfect copy.

18Furness Variorum Edition of Hamlet, Vol. II, p. 121.

19 " Hamlet and Contemporary Revenge Plays," Pub. of Mod. Lang. As. of
America, Vol. XVII, p. 151.

20 U. s., p. 171, note 2.

The First Quarto is so corrupt, however, that it is an un
safe basis for arguments. Its soliloquies are, for the most
part, short, crude and uncouth in their phrasing. The delicate
depiction of conscience in the King's prayer (III, 3, 36-72) is
scarcely recognizable in the First Quarto : it contains the idea
but not the poetry of contrition. Indeed, throughout the First
Quarto there is a dearth of poetic expression, but the the
atrical " points " are invariably made. Hamlet's third solilo
quy, for example, abrupt and turgid as it appears in the First
Quarto, nevertheless makes, in half the space, the "points"
of the Second Quarto: "What's Hecuba to him," "Am I a
coward?" "About, my brain," "The play's the thing," — but
the early soliloquy lacks, as usual, the sequence and grace
of its successor.

Only the first and fourth soliloquies of Hamlet approach
the definitive utterance of the Second Quarto. Nevertheless,
the garden metaphor, which lends poignancy to the first solilo
quy (I, 2, 135-137) does not appear in the earlier text. The
First Quarto version of the great soliloquy of the tragedy has
an intrinsic as well as a comparative interest:

" To be, or not to be, I there's the point,
To Die, to sleepe, is that all ? I all :
No, to sleepe, to dreame, I mary there is goes,
For in that dreame of death, when we awake,
And borne before an everlasting Judge,
From whence no passenger ever returned,
The undiscovered country, at whose sight
The happy smile, and the accursed damn'd,
But for this, the joyfull hope of this,
Whol'd beare the scornes and flattery of the world,
Scorned by the right rich, the rich curssed of the poore?
The widow being oppressed, the orphan wrong'd,
The taste of hunger, or a tirants raigne,
And thousand more calamities besides
To grunt and sweate under this weary life,
When that he may his full Quietus make,
With a bare bodkin, who would this indure,
But for a hope of something after death ?
Which pusles the braine, and doth confound the sence,
Which makes us rather beare those evilles we have,
Than flie to others that we know not of.
I, that, O this conscience makes cowards of us all " (pp. 25-26).

If one can view the speech detached from association with its
final expression, he finds it a creation. Surely its elemental
phrase and mood constitute more than a mere skeleton for the
finished soliloquy. On the other hand, the Second Quarto
version is no mere amplification: its subtle strokes show the
hand of the consummate artist.

The replacing of the soliloquy in the Second Quarto, mak
ing it subsequent to the soliloquy determining on the play, has
given rise to adverse comment. Hunter21 thus states his ob
jection to the final arrangement: "Such meditations as these
are not such as were likely to arise in the mind of one who
had just conceived a design by which he hoped to settle a
doubt of a very serious kind, and who must have been full of
curiosity about the issue of his plot. If his speech is to
indicate deliberation concerning suicide, or is even allied to
suicide, such deliberation is surely out of place when curiosity
was awake and his mind deeply intent on somethnig that
he must do. To be sure, the hypothesis of Inconsistency will
explain all; but then it will explain anything." Hunter's
reasoning is" logical, and evidently Shakespeare had the same
idea when he blocked out the drama, but his revision in this
respect, as in others, shows the keenest insight into dramaturgy.
As to Hamlet's apparent inconsistency, that may be explained
on the grounds of his moody temperament. At any rate, this
point never troubles an audience, the final judge, as Shake
speare knew. His reason for altering the soliloquy was doubt
less for the sake of dramatic contrast and cumulative interest.
As Dr. Mott observes, we have in the Second Quarto " the
structural device of presenting a series of strong incentives
and vigorous resolves, each followed by an equally conspicuous
inactivity."22 The great soliloquy of the pieces is static, and
accordingly it is placed shortly before the play-within-the-play,
a dynamic crisis of the action. Shakespeare invariably keeps
the moving plot in the background of his reflective passages.
Thus here, in the Second Quarto, as we have been told in

21 Furness Variorum Edition of Hamlet, Vol. I, p. 206.

22 " The Position of the Soliloquy ' To be or not to be ' in Hamlet," Pub.
of Mod. Lang. As. of America, Vol. XIX, new series, Vol. XII, p. 31.

Hamlet's third soliloquy that he will try the conscience of the
king with a play, and as we have seen the players and know
that the preparations are going toward, Hamlet's pondering
on suicide furnishes an added element of suspense, and it
therefore actually augments the story interest. As the suicide
soliloquy originally stood, the play-within-the-play was un
known, and the only interest was in the being or not being
of a hero without purpose. Such a predicament might almost
make a quietus of the supreme tragedy in the English
language.

The Second Quarto not only transplants the most conspicu
ous soliloquy but it also adds two new ones — one an incon
sequential link (IV, 6, 4-5) and the other the soliloquy of
Hamlet in which, for the last time, he communes with his
spirit, unbraiding his want of decision, moralizing thereon in
memorable fashion, and concluding with a new determination
to revenge. Deeply tinged with Hamlet's introspective melan
choly, this soliloquy, like all the others of the second version,
is both unified and progressive in thought and expression.

Let us briefly review the hypothetical development of the
soliloquies of " Hamlet." If one may judge from the evidence
of the First Quarto and " Der Bestrafte Brudermord," some
of the important soliloquies had their origin in the lost Kydian
piece. These Shakespeare seems to have retouched in his first
version which is imperfectly preserved for us in the First
Quarto, and he apparently lavished most care on the " to be or
not to be." In revising the tragedy, the author seems to have
paid especial attention to the soliloquies, speeches practically
identical in the Second Quarto and the First Folio but differing
widely from those of the First Quarto. He alters the position
of his most prominent soliloquy, he adds one of a purely intro
spective nature, he elaborates the thought, refines the diction,
transforms jargon into music and infuses into every monolog
a commingling of poetry and feeling which the world has
styled genius.

Critics have attempted to discover the source of the idea
of the " to be or not to be " with imperfect success. The book
with which Hamlet enters in the First Quarto has been identi-

fied as Cardanus' "Comforte" (1576), and it may have sug
gested, as Hunter23 surmised, the linking of death with sleep
and dreams; if so, the resemblances are so general that they
are scarcely worth noting. With a greater degree of prob
ability, Professor Cook ascribes the root idea of

" The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveller returns "

tO Job, XI, 2I.2*

As in the case of this Biblical allusion, literary sources, other
than historical chronicles and old plays, occasionally appear
pertinent. It does not seem unlikely that the burlesque apos
trophes to the wall by Pyramus and Thisbe, in the play-within-
the-play of "A Midsummer-Night's Dream" (V, i, 171-182,
190-193), were suggested by Golding's translation of Ovid:
"O thou envious wall (they sayd) why lettst thou lovers
thus?"25 So also the mock heroic suicide soliloquies of
Pyramus and Thisbe (V, I, 276-292, 296-311, 331-354)
might easily have been inspired by the corresponding solilo
quies in the pseudo-heroic style of Golding's Ovid (p. 275) —
especially by the ranting of Pyramus, who concludes with the
apostrophe, " Devour ye, O ye Lions, all that in this rock doe
dwell."26 The situations are identical, and there is even the
accessory of moonlight, but, to be sure, the fun and the
jingling verse are peculiarly Shakespearean.

There seems an equally tenuous connection between the
soliloquies of " Troilus and Cressida " and the supposed
sources. If Shakespeare used the numerous lengthy moraliz-
ings of the Chaucerean protagonists, his abridgment has oblit
erated the debt. Shakespeare's most notable soliloquies are
the railings of Thersites. The self-characterization therein
contained seems to have originated in Chapman's Homer (Bk.
II, 11. 196 seq.), but the soliloquies are apparently Shake
speare's own.

23 The passage may be found in the Furness Variorum Edition of Hamlet,
Vol. I, p. 209.

24 " The Influence of Biblical upon Modern English Literature," by Albert
S. Cook, in The Bible as Literature, by R. G. Moulton and others, p. 368.

25 Furness Variorum Edition of A Midsummer-Night's Dream, p. 273.

x Cf. A Midsummer-Night's Dream, V, i, 296-297.

The only soliloquy in that portion of "Pericles" judged to
be by Shakespeare (III, i, 1-14) evidently gets its setting from
Gower's " Appolonius the Prince of Tyr :"

" The storme aros, the wyndes lowde
They blewen many a dredfulle blaste,
The walken was alle over caste.
The darke nyht the sonne hath under,
Ther was a grete tempeste of thonder . . .
This yonge ladye wepte and cride,
To whom no comfort myht availe :
Of childe she began travaile,
Wher she lay in a caban clos.
Here wofull lorde fro hire aros."27

He arises and comes into the drama with a prayer to assuage
the storm and his wife's suffering. It is possibly worthy of
remark that the other basis of the drama, Laurence Twine's
" Patterne of Painful Adventures," contains a number of solil
oquies, in one of which Apollonius apostrophizes the "most
false and untrustie sea."28

With more precision we may locate the starting-point of
the most striking soliloquy in " Cymbeline," the long speech of
lachimo (II, I, 11-51), which is, theatrically, one of the
greatest moments of the play. In the second day of the ninth
novel of the " Decameron," Ambruogivolo comes out of the
chest and observes the paintings and hangings, " with all things
else which were remarkable, which perfectly he committed to
memory." lachimo writes it all down, but inquires,

" Why should I write this down, that's riveted,
Screwed to my memory ? "

This is the nucleus, but into the situation Shakespeare has
infused the elements of breathless suspense and sensuous
poetry.

Most significant in our study of the sources of Shakespeare's
soliloquies are those of his first tragic masterpiece, "Romeo
and Juliet." Here for the first time they strike and maintain
a level of high poetic seriousness. The last soliloquy by
Richard the Third is of transcendant power in its bare depic-

27 Collier's Shakespeare's Library, Vol. I, p. 283.

28 U. s., p. 193.

tion of emotion, but many of his soliloquies are frankly exposi
tory. Behind the rapid action of "Romeo and Juliet," how
ever, the soliloquies form a vibrant background of exalted
passion. Is this conception of soliloquies as tense and lofty
revelations of the inner tragedy, accompanying and illuminat
ing the crises of the plot, original with Shakespeare? A peru
sal of Arthur Brooke's poem, " Romeus and Juliet," brings a
convincing answer in the negative. Brooke has many a solil
oquy in indirect discourse, and several in dramatic form, two
of which are by Romeo and four by Juliet. Love is the theme,
in manifold and various guises. Shakespeare gets the idea of
the soliloquy as a facile means of revealing emotion from
Brooke, but, as usual, he vitalizes and transfigures his borrow
ings. Only in two instances does he directly transcribe. In
Romeo's death soliloquy, he takes the apostrophe to Tybalt
(V, 3, 97-101). As Brooke phrases it,

" Ah cosin dere, Tybalt, where so thy restless sprite now be ...
What more amendes, or cruell worcke desyrest thou
To see on me, then this which here is shewd forth to thee now ?
Who reft by force of armes from thee thy living breath,
The same with his owne hand (thou seest) doth poyson himselfe
to death.."29

Again, in Juliet's potion soliloquy, Shakespeare follows the
fears and imaginings of the Brooke heroine rather closely. A
few parallel passages will illustrate the nature of the borrow
ings. The early Juliet, before taking the potion, thus gives
utterance to her suspicions:

" What do I knowe (quod she) if that this powder shall
Sooner or later than it should or els not work at all ? "K

Compare Shakespeare:

" What if this mixture do not work at all? " (IV, 3, 21).

Her horror of the tomb is similarly expressed in the two
versions.

" Or how shall I that alway have in so freshe ayre been bred,
Endure the loathsome stinke of such an heaped store . . .
Shall not the fryer and my Romeus, when they come,
Fynd me (if I awake before) ystifled in the tombe? "

29 Collier's Shakespeare's Library, Vol. II, p. 78.

30 U. s., p. 70.

Compare Shakespeare :

" Shall I not then be stifled in the vault,
To whose foul mouth no healthsome air breathes in,
And there die strangled ere my Romeo comes?" (11. 33~35).

Again,

" Where all my auncesters doe rest, my kindreds common grave."

Compare :

" Where, for this many hundred years, the bones
Of all my buried ancestors are pack'd " (11. 40-41).

Forthwith Brooke's Juliet sees the " carkas of Tybalt," even as
she beholds his ghost at the conclusion of the Shakespearean
soliloquy. Doubtless there is a connection between the solil
oquies of the two versions, and presumably the connection is
direct, although other hypotheses are possible. Painter's trans
lation of Boisteau's version of the story, in the " Palace of
Pleasure" (1567), contains precisely the same soliloquies
which Brooke's poem does, so similar that they read like close
paraphrases.

Moreover, the evidence of the Dutch play "Romeo and
Juliette" by Jacob Struijs, shown by Professor Fuller31 to be
an adaptation of a lost play used by Shakespeare as a source,
indicates clearly that Shakespeare received several important
suggestions from the soliloquies of the lost play. For example,
" even in the sleeping-potion scene, where in general there is a
close following of Boisteau, Juliette (of the Dutch piece) gives
a supreme touch to the force of her love, when her imaginings
become too dreadful, by calling upon the name of Romeo, even
as in Shakespeare, and by drinking the potion to him."32
Again, the theme of the soliloquy (III, 2, 1-31) " where Juliet
is impatiently awaiting for night and ior Romeo "33 is due to
the early play ; and, further, the detail of Romeo's apostrophe
to death (V, 3, 116, 117) may be attributed to the same
source.33

It is clear, therefore, that when Shakespeare wrote, the solil-

81 Harold de Wolf Fuller : " Romeo and Juliette," Modern Philology Vol
IV, p. 75.
83 U. s.,p. 38.
83 U. s., p. 40.

oquies of the play, the poem and the story were a firmly estab
lished tradition. Little credit is due Shakespeare for origi
nating the soliloquies, but, inspiring them with his lyric genius,
he thus re-created them.

It may not be amiss briefly to summarize Shakespeare's
sources. The chronicles furnish some material, but never in
the form of soliloquy. Plutarch, on one or two occasions, indi
cates a soliloquy as such, merely mentioning its position and
character. Shakespeare develops these hints with notable
results. Two classical dramas seem to have given him some
ideas as to monologs, although the classical type he more
honored in the breach than the observance. Possibly a dozen
plays in all contributed to his use of the soliloquy, but only in
two or three instances is the influence significant. Various
other sources gave rise to Shakespearean soliloquies, but none
are of far-reaching value, except in the case of " Romeo and
Juliet." If our study of sources led to no other discovery than
this, it would seem to justify itself, for here we have, thanks to
the source, the highest conception of the soliloquy consistently
maintained, — namely, the voicing in trance, reverie or anguish
the surging passions and thoughts which vivify the action.

Having noted all the ascertainable sources which inspired
Shakespeare's soliloquies, and having investigated their quanti
tative importance, let us turn our attention to a brief critical
observation of their chronological development. Viewed in the
large, the soliloquies naturally fall into chronological periods,
each with certain dominant characteristics, — although, to be
sure, such a classification cannot be absolute, since it has its
exceptions.

The first group, from " The First Part of Henry the Sixth "
to " The Comedy of Errors," uses the soliloquy as a device for
telling the story. Often crudely narrative and histrionically
grandiose, the soliloquy occasionally assumes extremely arti
ficial variations, as in the case of the overheard series of
"Love's Labour's Lost" (IV, 3, 1-126), although in "The
Comedy of Errors," it is marked by brevity and is reduced to
a mechanism. In " The First Part of Henry the Sixth," the

narrative takes the shape of exit speeches; in the second and
third parts, villainous plottings are made prominent ; while in
" The Two Gentlemen of Verona," the narrative assumes the
genial guise of the story-telling of Launce.

With the second group, passion enters. From " King John "
to " Romeo and Juliet," a ruling passion is manifest in the solil
oquies. There is a single exception, "The Merchant of
Venice," which is so crowded with incident that no room is left
for solitary revery. The soliloquies of the first group are
scattered promiscuously among various characters, while those
of the second show a tendency toward concentration in the
protagonist. The figure of the Bastard towers in "King
John," owing, in no small degree, to the vigorous irony of his
soliloquies. Of "Richard the Third," Professor Schelling
pertinently remarks that one of its likenesses to Marlowe's
work is the recurrence of the soliloquies of Richard.34 With
Marlowean abandon, Richard's diabolical ambition dominates
the piece from initial exposition to catastrophe, expressing itself
in no less than nine soliloquies. " Richard the Second " follows
another Marlowean pattern. He is the passive, not the active
agent, and he has only one soliloquy, but that the only one of
importance in the drama. The domineering note returns in
" The Taming of the Shrew," where the conspicuous solilo
quies are by the comic villian-hero, Petruchio. His ruling
passion is quite different from that centered in the soliloquies
of Romeo and Juliet, even as theirs had been sketched, with
cartoon exaggeration, in the mock soliloquies of Pyramus and
Thisbe.

Next comes a little group, consisting of " Henry the Fourth,"
"Henry the Fifth" and "The Merry Wives," in which the
comic monolog is exalted, Falstaff's soliloquies disclosing his
embarrassments and his convictions with a fidelity truly
ludicrous. Incidentally, the soliloquy as a rhetorical ornament
is used with telling effect, most impressively in Henry's lyric
outburst on sleep (Part II, III, i, 4-31).

The fourth group extends from "Julius Caesar" to "Meas
ure for Measure." A definite advance in the comprehension

34 The English Chronicle Play, p. 93.

and technic of the soliloquy is felt, expressing itself in a new
and more analytical interest in the psychology of the solilo
quizer. Such are the brooding and moralizing of Brutus, the
sardonic invective of Thersites, the subtle and involved analy
ses of the emotions by Helena and the Countess,35 and even the
self-knowledge of Parolles (IV; 4, 366-376). Perhaps most
conspicuously is the moralizing element revealed in the solilo
quies of Angelo.36 Villain though he is, his meditations are far
from the spirit of the straightforward plottings of Gloucester,
Edmund and lago. His villainy is made possible by his giving
utterance to his conscience as well as to his passions. Nor is
the self analysis confined to the soliloquies serious in purpose.
To be sure, " As You Like It " is practically without soliloquy,
doubtless owing to the fact that the action is leisurely and the
dialog often reflective, so that the introduction of a long mono-
log might destroy the charming atmosphere of the piece by
producing an effect of stagnation. The masterly psychological
studies in soliloquy of Benedick and Malvolio, however, fall
into line with those of Brutus, Angelo and the rest. The analy
tical method is the same, but the angle of disclosure is shifted,
so that, in the case of " Much Ado " and " Twelfth Night," the
very seriousness of the soliloquizers produces laughter. Both
the comic and the tragic soliloquies of this period have a curi
ously paradoxical relation of attachment and detachment to
the main theme. They are linked with the plot and yet they
could easily be dropped from the action. Bearing on the story,
they nevertheless usually have the unity of an isolated monolog,
whether it is a funny situation, a bit of moralizing, or a little
poem for recitation. Perhaps the best illustration is the rimed
didacticism with which the Duke concludes the third act of
" Measure for Measure." It is more vitally connected with the
plot than the ornamental soliloquies of the previous group, and
yet it is far from the searching introspection of the following
period.

Indeed the distinctive soliloquies of the next group, which
extends, we may say, from " Hamlet " to " Timon of Athens,"

35 All's Well, I, i, 231-244 ; I, 3, 134-141.

* Measure for Measure, II, 2, 162-187; II, 4, 1-17; IV, 4, 21-37.

do not differ from their predecessors in kind but rather in
degree. Introspection and conscience are the dominant qualities
of the great soliloquies of this great period. Both elements
have their precursors. Brutus is introspective, but his thought
takes the form of generalizations, while the soliloquies of
Hamlet pulse with the very anguish of his spirit. Angelo's
conscience is revealed, but in a sort of dilettant fashion — a
slight pain, as it were, which disturbs his pleasure. The con
science of Macbeth is a disease which eats into his soul. Intro
spection becomes wormwood in the misanthropic meditations
of Timon, tinged with the mannerism of classical precedent.
Indeed the thought element of this group is strained to the
breaking point. Hamlet's broodings are close to the verge of
insanity, as commentators and physicians have testified, while
Lear's ravings break the bonds. Now it is not to be supposed
that Shakespeare arrived at a definite and inflexible conception
of the soliloquy as a convention, even when he was writing the
greatest soliloquies ever penned. His understanding of the
possibilities of the soliloquy had arrived gradually, as we have
seen, but its ultimate expression was doubtless intuitive rather
than conscious. His was an age of creation, not criticism, and
it remained for subsequent centuries to interpret the soliloquy
and to prescribe rules for it. Consequently it need not surprise
us that, alongside of the inner struggle of Hamlet, the soul
cry of Othello, and Macbeth's consciousness of moral decay,
we have the frankly narrative monolo^of the villains lago and
Edmund. However, even in the simple expositions of their
villainy, superbly independent of plausibility, there are notice
able the intellectual traits which dominate this group of solil
oquies.

The soliloquies of the last group are miscellaneous in con
tent and purpose. Perhaps they may be best designated quan
titatively, but with a conspicuous exception. There is a general
dwindling of the soliloquy, if not in actual number of lines, at
least in importance and emphasis. The use of the soliloquy in
"Pericles" and "Antony and Cleopatra" is facile, but not
notable. Except for a bit of philosophizing, " Coriolanus " is
without soliloquy. Then comes the exception, " Cymbeline,"

which contains more soliloquies, both in number and quantity,
than any other Shakespearean piece. What is the explanation ?

The reason lies in the new type of piece which Shapespeare
here inaugurates. As Professor Thorndike points out, Shake
speare is making a radical departure into the realm of " dra
matic romance," with which he closes his career.37 The species
is very artificial, and quite independent of naturalistic effect. It
consists of a series of episodes and adventures, with inter
spersed monologs which fill the gaps of the story and explain
the passions of the characters. " Philaster," the model which
it seems quite possible " Cymbeline " imitated,38 contains a large
number of soliloquies, and it is interesting to note that in
method as well as quantity, there is a similarity in the solilo
quies of the two pieces. Both use the soliloquy to show a
character going to sleep, both evince deft artistry in manipu
lating the soliloquy as a structural link, and throughout, both
exalt the soliloquy as a revelation of passion. Shakespeare
goes his contemporaries a step better in utilizing the soliloquy
for emotional effect, and indeed he out-Herods Herod in pro
fusion and variety of soliloquies. There are expositions of
situation and character, villainous plottings, explanations of
disguise, apostrophes, ragings and lamentations.

" Winter's Tale," though similar in structure to " Cymbe
line," is very dissimilar in the use of soliloquies. Here the
author seems to be reverting to the tendency toward condensa
tion typical of the last period. His source, the tale of
"Pandosto," contains a number of long and conventional
meditations and laments,38 but he carefully eschews them. The
soliloquies of " Winter's Tale " are not notable, and not even
noticeable, if we except the comic monologs of Autolycus.
Likewise, the only conspicuous quality of the few soliloquies
of "The Tempest" is their broad humor. "Henry the
Eighth" is also practically without soliloquy, except the two
farewells which Wolsey makes to his greatness (III, 2, 203-

OT See The Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher on Shakespeare, Chap
ter VIII.

u U. s., pp. 157-160.

"For example, Collier's Shakespeare's Library, Vol. I, pp. 34, Si, 53-

227, 3S(y-372)- According to the latest critical opinion,40 the
probabilities are that not a word of soliloquy in the drama was
written by Shakespeare, but whether by Shakespeare, Fletcher
or another, the final farewell is justly famous for its majestic
utterance and its touching sincerity.

Thus we have traced the growth of Shakespeare's soliloquies
in six periods, the prominent characteristics of which may be
briefly suggested, although only partially indicated, by six
words : narration, passion, comedy, morality, introspection and
disappearance. From crudity to perfection and thence to
nothingness is the history of the technic. Variety is the strik
ing characteristic. The master workman learns the tricks from
the contemporary playwrights and from his sources. He does
not create new forms of the soliloquy: the address to the
audience and the comic monolog, the prayer and the moralizing
were as old as the beginnings of drama; the love lament and
the tragic revery flourished on the continent and in the England
of his youth. All these he uses. No paltry credit of innova
tion is due Shakespeare, but transfiguration was his achieve
ment. Despite the stage limitations of his day, Shakespeare
succeeded in revealing the human mind in comic and tragic
isolation, as no one else has ever done. Such is the testimony
of the immortal soliloquies of FalstafT and Benedick, Romeo
and Juliet, Brutus, Hamlet and Macbeth.

40 See W. A. Neilson's Cambridge Edition of Shakespeare, p. 771.

CHAPTER III

THE SHAKESPEAREAN SOLILOQUY A MEANS OF EXPOSITION

From its inception to its disappearance, the soliloquy has
been an important factor in the structure of the drama. The
term " structure " excludes rhetorical ornaments, the narratives
of the buffoon, comical and tragic musings and philosophizings,
as well as outbursts of grief, rage, jealousy and other passions,
when such monologs exist for their own sake. Our present
consideration is the less conspicuous soliloquy, which, up to
the middle of the nineteenth century, has been freely employed

Shakespeare invents no devices for this purpose. His usage,
however, is so comprehensive that it includes nearly every
technical contrivance which precedes him, and, at the same
time, it is so definitive that it becomes the model for his suc
cessors. Let us, then, study the structural aspect of the Shake
spearean soliloquy, the manifestation and culmination of the
theatrical custom of ages, first as a means of exposition, and
second as an accompaniment of the action. The expository
soliloquy may be subdivided according to the following classi
fication: (i) initial exposition, (2) identification, (3) disguis

ing, (4) characterization, (5) villainy, and (6) narration.

-I

INITIAL EXPOSITION

The playwright has a story to tell, many of the details of
which it is difficult to adapt to conversation. The audience
must have the information in order to understand the plot,
the character or the situation. To-day the result is brought
about, as realistically as possible, in dialog. Ibsen, on occa
sion, has made a virtue of necessity, divulging the story, bit by
bit, throughout the production : witness the cumulative horror
of the revelations of " Ghosts." In the primitive drama, how
ever, monolog is often the simplest and easiest method of
exposition, and the speech of the character which informs the

audience of the facts they ought to know we designate as the
"exposition monolog," borrowing the word from German
criticism.1

Naturally the exposition monolog frequently opens the
drama, for the purpose of imparting data preliminary to the
action and necessary for a comprehension of the plot. Hence,
the presentation speech of the manager in the Hindu drama,2
and the equally objective and specific exposition in the prolog
of Roman comedy.3 But speeches of prolog and presenter are
not spoken by members of the dramatis personae, and there
fore they are in no sense soliloquies. Initial exposition mono-
logs by characters in the play do occur, however, in early
dramas of India, China, Greece and Rome. " The Toy-Cart,"
thought to be the earliest of the extant Hindu dramas, and
the "Ratnavali" both begin with imposing exposition mono-
logs.4 So does the "Eumenides" of Aeschylus, when the
Pythoness follows her invocation with an introductory nar
rative. This is the only case of the initial exposition mono-
log in Aeschylus, and Sophocles has none at all, but in
Euripides the device is so frequent that it practically consti
tutes a law of composition. It opens thirteen of his tragedies,5
and four of the speeches are assigned to the protagonist,6 a
beginning used with telling effect by Marlowe and Shakespeare.
Several times Aristophanes employs the monologic opening,7 —
once, when Praxagora of the " Ecclesiazusae " hangs up a lamp
and proceeds to apostrophize it, in clever burlesque of the
initial exposition of the Euripidean heroine.

"It was not till the time of Plautus and Terence that the

1 See " Der Shakespearesche Monolog und seine Spielweise," by Eugen
Kilian, Shakespeare Jahrbuch, Vol. XXXIX, p. xvii.

2 For example, Select Specimens of the Theater of the Hindus, translated
by H. H. Wilson, Vol. I, pp. 14-17.

3 For example, the Captivi of Plautus.

* Select Specimens of the Theater of the Hindus, Vol. I, p. 20 ; Vol. II,
p. 267.

* Medea, Alcestis, Suppliants, Heracleidae, Trojan Women, Ion, Helena,
Andromache, Electro, Orestes, Iphegenia among the Tauri, Cyclops, Phoeni
cian Women.

8 Helen, Andromache, Iphegenia and Jocasta in Phoenician Women.
7 The Acharnians, The Clouds, Lysistrata, and The Ecclesiazusae.

Prolog was formally divorced from the body of the drama, and
that an independent address of the poet to the audience pre
ceded the action of the play itself,"8 The prolog does not
supplant the initial exposition soliloquy, however; instead,
both are used in the "Trinummus," " Bacchides," " Mena-
echmi," "Captivi," "Amphitryon," "Mercator" and "Trucu-
lentus " of Plautus, and the " Adelphi " of Terence. Terence's
" Phormio " opens with Davus, a second prolog, as it were,
since he is a protactic character, making his appearance only
for the purpose of giving the initial exposition.

Seneca, like his master Euripides, is fond of the opening
monolog. Sometimes the opening is prologic in nature, but in
several instances it is closely akin to the expository soliloquy,
notwithstanding the presence of another character. "Her
cules Oetaeus "9 begins with a long speech by the protagonist
which invokes the " Sator Deorum " and concludes with five
lines addressed to his companion Lichas. Octavia, weary of
existence, bewails her misery at the opening of the tragedy
bearing her name, and, but for the fact that the nurse replies,
this would be a soliloquy of Elizabethan stamp. Likewise the
opening lament of Oedipusis virtually a soliloquy, although
Jocasta stands by and, afteF his speech, chides him for his
complaints. The Senecan " Medea " seems an improvement
over the Euripidean, in respect to the introductory soliloquy,
which Seneca assigns to the protagonist. Her prayer to the
gods for vengeance is moving in its passion and artistic in its
subtle revelation of the story.

It is Seneca's " Tenne Tragedies " (1559-1581) which trans
mit from Greece to England the tradition of the initial exposi
tion soliloquy, while the device as introductory to the comic
plot is carried to England in adaptations and translations of
Plautus and Terence in the early sixteenth century ; but, inde
pendent of classical influence, the initial exposition monolog
appears in the English miracle play. The York, Chester,

8 A Study of the Prolog and Epilog in English Literature from Shakes
peare to Dryden, by G. S. B., p. 3.

9 This and the rest of the Tenne Tragedies are Senecan for our purposes,
as we adopt the Elizabethan point of view : see The Influence of Seneca on
Elizabethan Tragedy, by J. W. Cunliffe, p. 13.

Coventry and Towneley cycles all open with speeches by Deus,
in which he tells who he is, and briefly gives the Biblical
setting.10 The method is crude but straightforward. A
favorite guise of the initial exposition monolog in the Coven
try cycle — and in the Greek and Indian drama, for that matter
— is the prayer. Sometimes a series of prayers opens a piece.
The lamentation, another form with Greek and Indian pre
decessors, occasionally tells the preliminary story of the
miracle. In the Coventry play of " Christ appearing to
Mary,"11 there is an effective opening monolog in which Mary
Magdalene mourns at the tomb. The lament sometimes attains
extraordinary length. In one of the York plays, Joseph, sup
posed to be wandering in the wilderness, has a complaint
seventy-four lines long, and in another Thomas bewails his
fate for one hundred and four lines.12

The monologic opening is more frequent in the morality
than in the miracle, but invariably it is so didactic in tone that
it can scarcely be termed expository. It is usually in the form
of a little sermon, preached directly to the auditors, as, for
example, the introductory discourses of Mercy in " Mankind,"
who exhorts "ye soverans that sytt, and ye brothern that
stonde ryghte uppe."13

Early English drama affords numerous illustrations of the
initial exposition soliloquy both in tragedy and comedy. As
an instance of each may be cited the love lament of Gismond
opening "Gismond of Salerne" (1568) and the genial in
formation imparted by Mathew Merygreeke at the beginning
of "Roister Doister" (1552 c.). In length of discourse and
facility of expression, both indicate classical inheritance. The
" Klagenmonolog " of Gismond Professor Brandl compares
with that of Seneca's "Phaedra,"14 and Professor Cunliffe

10 York Plays, edited by L. T. Smith, p. i ; Towneley Plays, re-edited by
Geo. England and A. W. Pollard, Early English Text Society, Extra Series
LXXI, p. i ; Ludus Conventriae, edited by J. O. Halliwell, London Shake
speare Society, Vol. IV, p. 19 ; Chester Plays, same editor and publication,
Vol. XVII, p. 8.

11 Ludus Coventriae, p. 360.

13 York Plays, pp. 102, 480.
"Manly, Vol. I, p. 315.

14 Quellen des Weltlichen Dramas in England vor Shakespeare, p. C.

points out the similarity between this soliloquy and a parallel
lament in Dolce's "Dido" (V, I, 37-43). 15 In the case of
Merygreeke's speech, although it bears a general resemblance
to the initial exposition of Roman comedy, the fact must not
be overlooked that the device occurs in comedies apparently in
dependent of the classics, — in the plays of John Heywood, for
example.

Shakespeare's immediate predecessors use opening monologs
sparingly. Lyly, Greene and Kyd have practically none, but
Marlowe's " Doctor Faustus," " Jew of Malta," and " Edward
the Second " begin with notable soliloquies. While the speech
of Faustus is a graphic depiction of the meditations of "the
studious artisan," Gaveston's monolog is frankly expository,
and that of Barabas is subtly so. Discovered counting his gold
and rhapsodizing over the gems of India, the very picture of
the soliloquizer is exposition in itself, but deftly inlaid in the
resplendent verse is the significant statement of the fact that
the ships are arriving safe.

It is quite possible that the vivid speeches of the protagonists
Barabas and Faustus suggested the daring opening of
"Richard the Third." This is the only occurrence of the
initial exposition in Shakespeare, but it seems to epitomize the
type.

Gloucester combines the direct assertion of the Satan of the
miracle play16 with imagery as comprehensive as that of the
classics :

" Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York."

The soliloquy is remarkable for its easy transition from the
general to the specific. It treats three themes : first, the peace
ful state of the realm; second, the speaker's deformity; and
third, his villainy. His villainy directs itself against Clarence
who thereupon makes his appearance. This is at once an in
troduction to the immediate situation and a key to the entire
action; the background of the tragedy is given, together with

15 " Gismond of Salerne," Publications of the Modern Language Association
of America, June, 1906, p. 443.

18 York Plays, edited by L. T. Smith, p. 22 ; see ante, p. 8.

a description of the physical, mental and moral characteristics
of its leading figure and a declaration of his purposes. The
impracticability of the contrivance is evident when one con
siders that an audience does not become quiet during the first
speech of a play, and accordingly, in this case, it would miss a
vital explanation. Perhaps this is the reason that Shakespeare
does not repeat the experiment. Undoubtedly it is the cause
of the modern rearrangements of the opening, the soliloquy
being placed after matter less significant.

The disadvantage of the position of the initial exposition
monolog has not prevented great dramatists from using it on
occasion. Lope de Vega begins "El Major Alcalde el Rey"
with a long and imposing soliloquy in which Sancho declares
his love in ravishing terms. Moliere uses the device nine
times, conspicuously in " Le Malade Imaginaire," where Argan
is discovered sitting at a table, computing his apothecary's
bill. Chettle, Yarrington, Tourneur, Jonson, Dekker, Middleton
and many others of Shakespeare's contemporaries avail them
selves of the initial exposition monolog, but only once do
Beaumont and Fletcher employ it. In " The Knight of Malta,"
Mountferrat indulges in a lover's lament, which includes a
grandiose description of his prowess and a declaration of his
hatred. Dryden, too, abandons this method of exposition, with
a single exception, the soliloquy of Cleomenes. Indeed, aside
from a number of classical or Elizabethan imitations, the form
falls into disuse soon after Shakespeare. In the early nine
teenth century, there are a few inconsequential revivals — the
opening of B. W. Procter's " Mirandola," for example. The
philosophical meditations with which Goethe's Faust begins the
drama fall in line with those of Marlowe's Faustus, but they
are not primarily expository. Again, the opening of Byron's
"Manfred" is reminiscent of Goethe's "Faust," and it con
tains a hint of narration.

These instances illustrate the fact that the initial exposition
soliloquy has proved especially alluring to the closet dramatist.
Samuel Daniel devotes the entire first act of his " Cleopatra "
(Pr- J594) to the impressively phrased lamentation of the pro
tagonist. Many of the nineteenth century poets have used the

contrivance: Byron, Beddoes, Coleridge, and Miss Mitford,
Shelley in his "Prometheus Unbound," Browning in " Pippa
Passes " and Maeterlinck in " Alladine and Palomedes." Dis
pensing with introductory props, the form is a picturesque
challenge to the imagination. That is one charm of Glou
cester's soliloquy.

IDENTIFICATION

One function of practically all of the initial exposition solilo
quies, and of many others besides, is that of identification.
Gloucester does not state his name, but he carefully analyzes
his personality. The villain Edmund of " Lear " devotes
nearly all of his first soliloquy to the establishing of his iden
tity and proclaims himself "the bastard Edmund" (I, 2, 17).
Belarius, in his crudely expository monolog in " Cymbeline " is
even more specific : " Myself, Belarius, that am Morgan called "
(III, 3, 106). Likewise, Autolycus: "My father named me
Autolycus, who being, as I am, littered under Mercury, was
likewise a snapper-up of unconsidered trifles" ("Winter's
Tale," IV, 3, 25-27).

The comical announcement of the speaker's name is as old
as Plautus. In " Stichus," Gelasimus informs the audience
that ' when little, his father gave him his name, because, even
from a tiny child, he was a droll chap ' (II, i).17 The English
Vice sometimes interprets his name in classical fashion, — so
Ambidexter in " Cambises " :

" My name is Ambidexter : I signifie one
That with both hands finely can play."18

The methods of establishing the identity of the monologist in
early English drama are delightfully naive. The York,
Chester, Coventry and Towneley cycles begin with the simple
statement : " Deus sum." In the play of " The Prophets," each
prophet announces himself thus: "I am the prophete called
Isaye," " I am David," " I Jonas," and so on.19 In the same

" Cf. the openings of the Menaechmi and the Captivi.

18 Manly, Vol. II, p. 168.

19 Ludus Coventriae, p. 65.

manner, the characters of the St. George plays declare their
names.20

The monologs of all the moralities, early and late, are largely
descriptive of the speakers and abound with self-identifications.
Avarice in "Respublica" (1553 c.) preludes the information
as to his identity in this wise :

" But now what my name is, and what my purpose —
Taking you all for friends — I fear not to disclose."21

The palmer in John Heywood's " merry interlude of the foure
PP " frankly presents himself : " I am a palmer, as ye se."22
Bishop Bale, who, like Heywood, often uses monologic self-
identification, furnishes a rather amusing instance in his " King
Johan:"

" To shew what I am I thynke yt convenyent :
Johan, Kyng of Ynglond, the cronyclys doth me call."28

In later plays the self-identification is not so apparent, but it
persists as long as the initial exposition soliloquy.

Indemnification of characters other than the speaker is some
times accomplished in monolog. At the opening of Tourneur's
"Revenger's Tragedy" (pr. 1607), Vindici identifies the mem
bers of the ducal train as they pass by. A primitive example
of the same contrivance is the prolog of the " Captivi " of
Plautus, where the monologist, without any attempt at artifice,
points out the characters to the spectators. This .theatrical
device, however, is only remotely allied with the soliloquy, but
a favorite conclusion of the soliloquy serves to identify others,
— n^mery; ttie^pregared entrance.

Although not peculiar to the soliloquy, the prepared entrance
occurs more frequently there than in dialog. In Indian, Greek
and Roman dramas, as well as those of modern nations, there
are many examples of the soliloquizer's concluding with the
remark that So-and-so is approaching, an easy way of ac
quainting the spectator with the new arrival. Since there is

x Manly, Vol. I, pp. 289-290, 293.
aLost Tudor Plays, p. 182.
23 Manly, Vol. I, p. 484.
23 Manly, Vol. I, p. 526.

nothing intricate about the device, and no variety in its
manipulation, a few illustrations from Shakespeare will suffice
to show its stereotyped character :

" See, here he comes " (" Comedy of Errors," II, 2, 6).

"Here Clarence comes" ("Richard III," I, i, 41).

" Here comes my messenger " (" Midsummer-Night's Dream," III, 2, 4).

" But who comes here? " (" Taming of the Shrew," II, i, 38).

" But here she comes " (" Taming of the Shrew," II, i, 182).

" O here comes my nurse " (" Romeo and Juliet," III, 2, 31).

"O here he comes" ("Merry Wives," III, 5, 60).

" But here the lady comes " (" Twelfth Night," IV, 3, 21).
• " But here they come " (" Othello," II, 3, 63).
. " Look where she comes " (" Othello," III, 3, 277).
" " Look where he comes " (" Othello," III, 3, 330).

" But who comes here? " (" Lear," IV, i, 9).

" Hush ! here comes the lords of Tyre " (" Pericles," I, 3, 9).

"Here come moe voices" (" Coriolanus," II, 3, 132).

" Lo, here she comes " (" Cymbeline," III, 3, 22).

Those who are wont to regard Shakespeare as never repeat
ing himself may well consider the above list of soliloquy end
ings. Moreover, none of these formulas are original: count
less examples of the same words may be found in his
predecessors. Yet so simple is the phrase, " Here he comes,"
with its slight variations, that it is quite inconspicuous and far
from monotonous as the great poet uses it. On occasion, he
gives the formula a humorous turn. Antipholus of Ephesus
announces the approach of his Dromio with the observation,
"Here comes the almanac of my true date" ("Comedy of")
Errors," II, i, 41). Edmund breaks off his ruminations on
astrology with: "Edgar — (Enter Edgar) and pat he comes V.
like the catastrophe of the old comedy" ("Lear," I, 2, 145). i
Even more abruptly are Timon's misanthophic musings inter- \
rupted by the appearance of Apemantus. " More man? " mut- j
ters Timon. "Plague, plague!" (IV, 3, 197). As in this /
case, the prepared entrance may merely call attention to the
new arrival, although it usually states his name. There is no
equivocation in the self -identification of a soliloquizer, how
ever : he informs the audience who he is.

DISGUISING

The soliloquizer who explains his disguise performs the same
function. The spectators must thoroughly understand who
the disguised one is, and accordingly a monolog is often intro
duced to reveal the facts. Almost everywhere that disguisings
occur, there may be found explanatory soliloquies. Comedy is
especially rich in them. Aristophanes uses the device when
Blepyrus mentions in monolog that he has on his wife's ker
chief and her Persian slippers.24 Jupiter in the "Amphi
tryon" of Plautus (HI, i) carefully instructs the audience as
to his metamorphosis, while Pleusides of the " Miles Glori-
ousus" (IV, 7) explains that his disguise is for the sake of
love, a motive often employed in Elizabethan drama.

The romantic and comic plays of Shakespeare's predecessors
occasionally contain soliloquies explanatory of disguise.
Whetstone's " Promos and Cassandra" (pr. 1578) has two,25
and Lyly's " Gallathea "26 a like number. " Mucedorus " (pr.
1598) has a scene in which the hero, while soliloquizing, puts
on his disguise in full view of the spectators ;27 and Gloucester
in "Look About You" (pr. 1600) adjusts a false beard, as he
announces, " From pursuivant I'll turn a hermit now."28 Since
this piece abounds in disguisings, there are a number of solilo
quies to explain them. The examples might be extended, were
there any distinguishing features worthy of note. In general,
it may be remarked that the assertion of disguise is usually less
ostentatiously effected than that of identity, as indicated by
Shakespeare's usage.

^He employs the soliloquy several times for the sake of ex-
plairmlppthe disguise. In "The Third Part of Henry the
Sixth," King Henry makes a point, not of his evident dis
guise, but of his real identity. " No, Harry, Harry, 'tis no
land of thine," he laments (III, I, 15), and the Keeper who
overhears him divines that "this is the quondam king" (III,

* Comedies, translated by Wm. J. Hickie, Vol. II, p. 633.

26 Six Old Plays, Vol. I, pp. 39, 98.

36 Works, edited by R. W. Bond, Vol. II, pp. 439, 441.

21 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. VII, p. 240.

28 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. VII, p. 466.

I, 23). Kent, in "Lear" (I, 4, 1-7) refers to his disguising
as having 'razed his likeness,' but he, too, emphasizes his (
identity, aspostrophizing himself as " banish'd Kent."

Shakespeare has a trick of preparing his audience for a dis- "J
guise before it occurs. Ford of the "Merry Wives" an- /
nounces, "I have a disguise to- sound Falstaff" (II, i, 245).
In "Lear," Edgar, not content with the statement that he
purposes to change his appearance, proceeds to describe his
"make-up":

" My face I'll grime with filth,
Blanket my loins, elf all my hairs in knots,
And with presented nakedness out-face
The winds and persecutions of the sky" (II, 3, 9-12).

Further, he transforms his voice, showing how it will sound in
the new role. " Poor Turlygod ! poor Tom ! " he cries. After
this elaborate explanation, the audience must surely remember
his concluding remark, " Edgar I nothing am." The soliloquy
is not idle chatter, for the next time Edgar enters, it is in the
character of " poor Tom," and, were it not for this vivid pro-
log, the spectators would be at a loss to understand the scene.

Equally important for the plot of " Cymbeline " is Cloten's
explanation of his disguise (IV, i). His iteration of the fact
that he is wearing the garments of Posthumous assumes signi
ficance when Imogen weeps over his beheaded trunk. Her
lament, attuned to romance rather than tragedy, is an appeal to
pity rather than terror, and it is necessary, for the desired
effect, that no doubt be left as to the actual identity of the
corpse she bewails; hence the preliminary information. Imo
gen's soliloquy explaining her own disguise, "I see a man's
life is a tedious one" (III, 6, i), is in a serio-comic vein, a
tone assumed by other heroines when explaining their mascu
line attire. Such are the soliloquies of Aspatia in "The
Maid's Tragedy" of Beaumont and Fletcher (V, 4) and of
Florimel in Dryden's "Secret Love" (V, i). Beaumont and
Fletcher frequently employ the device, — once in the soliloquy
of a man disguised as a maid ("Monsieur Thomas," IV, 8),
again of a servant in his master's clothes ("Women Pleased,"
I» 3)» again of a gentleman disguised as a rustic ("Women

Pleased," IV, i), and so on. The vogue of this type of
soliloquy seems to have diminshed with the waning of the dra
matic romance.

CHARACTERIZATION

It is only a step from disguise to characterization: in one
case the soliloquizer tells who he is supposed to be, and in the
other he discloses his real personality. Naturally, the revel-
ation of character is^of much greater importance, and indeed,
if interpreted in the large, it constitutes one of the most vital
functions^joJLJhe soliloquy. All notable soliloquies indicate
something of the speaker's nature. Often the portrayal is
keenly introspective, but neither the subtly psychological an
alysis nor the unobtrusively incidental revelation concern the
present inquiry into the exposition monolog. The self -char
acterizing soliloquizer, on occasion, gives a frank and, as it
were, impersonal account of his character.

Excluding, for the moment, the villain's soliloquy, there is
only one flagrant case of the self -characterizing monolog in
Shakespeare, that of Prince Hal ("Henry IV," Part I, i, 2,
219-240). This much discussed speech exists for the sake of
exposition. The Prince's true worth and his ultimate respect
ability must be understood at the start. He alone knows of
his intention to 'throw off this loose behavior,' and conse
quently he divulges the secret. Making allowances for the
free use of the expository monolog in Elizabethan days, the
modern critic is nevertheless inclined to consider this instance
unjustified. The prince is not speaking as a choral interlude,
but as himself, and accordingly his character suffers from his
coldly impersonal cognizance of his present delinquencies and
his egoistic purpose to use them as a background for future
glorification. " Surely this is a great mistake of Shakespeare's,"
says Professor Dowden ; " surely in so far as the prince did act
from this motive, he was a charlatan and a snob."29

Self-characterization has usually been effected in comic
rather than serious monolog. The parasite of Roman comedy
is addicted to this manner of presenting himself, — at the open-

29 The Mind and Art of Shakespeare, p. 211.

ing of the " Captivi " of Plautus, for example. So the English
clown throughout his career, including his appearance in Shake
speare,30 is wont to talk about himself. The serious aspect
of the monolog develops in the moralities, which abound in
long discourses on the virtues or vices represented, as John
Skelton's " Magnificence "31 affords ample illustration. After
the advent of classical and continental influences on the drama,
the self-characterization becomes more subtle and less direct.
Occasional instances of the old type may be found, however,
even in modern times. Victor Hugo makes a startling use of
it in "Hernani" (1830), when Don Carlos (IV, 2) reveals a
complete change of character.

To be sure, characterization of people other than the speaker
has often been accomplished in soliloquy. There are some
notable examplesJiL Shakespeare. Viola's charming comment
on the Clown in "Twelfth Night" (III, i, 67-75) is delicately
penetrative ; and, in an entirely different vein, Lady Macbeth's
analysis of her husband^jiatur.e._is_-kep"1y sparring (I, 5,
16-26). Whether or not Macbeth possesses " the milk of
human kindness,"32 the whole tragedy proves her soliloquy a
masterly delineation "oT~^Is~TraTltyr Shakespeare does not
hesitate to^ show a soliloquizer duped in his estimate of char
acter, however. Both Cassio and Othello commend lago's
honesty (III, I, 43; III, 3, 258), but the dramatist is careful
to precede their observations with lago's own assertion of
villainy. On the other hand, it is rather curious, but obviously
expository, that the villains credit the objects of their hatred
with their true merits. Thus the cruel Queen of " Cymbeline "
admits Pisanio's constancy (I, 5, 75), the scoundrel Edmund
acknowledges that he has a noble brother ("Lear," I, 2, 195),
and lago grants Othello "of a free and open nature" (I, 3,
405), and again "of a constant, loving, noble nature" (II,
1,298).

80 See pp. 1 01— no of this dissertation.

M Poetical Works, edited by Alexander Dyce, Vol. I, pp. 226, 247, 252,
257, 273-

K See W. W. Story's Excursions in Art and Letters, p. 225.

YILLAINY__

The most significant form of the self-characterizing solilo
quy is that of the ^tting^villain — a device of ancient lineage.
Samsthanaka in " The Toy Cart " gloats and plots33 in much
the same fashion that Satan does in the miracles and moralities.
We have already noted the Satanic soliloquy of the miracle as
a prototype of Gloucester's machinations.34 The moralities
preserve the tradition. The gleeful monologs of Lucifer in
"Wisdom Who is Christ"35 reveal a certain dashing devil
try, while the devil of "Lusty Juventus " (i547~53c-) not
only plots but also discloses his hypocrisy.36 Likewise in
Skelton's " Magnificence," Cloaked Colusion candidly lays
bare his hypocrisy in a soliloquy of eighty-six lines,37 and
Hypocrisy again reveals himself in a long monolog in "The
Conflict of Conscience" by Nathaniel Woodes (pr. 1581 ).38
The soliloquy of the villain reappears in "Nice Wanton,"
when Worldly Ambition, with the villain's stage laugh,
exults over the downfall of the heroine.39 Marston's Piero
in "Antonio's Revenge" (pr. 1602) has the same diabol
ical laugh: "Antonio lives: umph: how long? ha, ha! how
long?"40 — a laugh reechoed by Eleazer in "Lust's Dominion"
(pr. i657),41 and tne villain Baradas of "Richelieu" (1839)
is wont to accompany his gloatings with the same diabolical
" Ha, ha ! " It may be worthy of a passing note that the late
Thomas Kean followed Gloucester's soliloquy, " Was ever
woman in this humor woo'd" (I, 2, 228-264) with a peal of
fiendish laughter.

The majority of the villains preceding Gloucester are pain
fully explicit in their monologic revelations, but there are a
few conspicuous exceptions, such as the stealthy Ateukin of

33 Select Specimens of the Theater of the Hindus, pp. 143, 166.

34 Ante, pp. 8, 51.

^Digby Mysteries, edited by F. J. Furnivall, pp. 150, 157.
86 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. II, pp. 62, 68.
37 Works, edited by Dyce, Vol. I, p. 247.
88 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. VI, p. 45.
88 Manly, Vol. I, p. 475.

40 Works, edited by Bullen, II, i, p. 123.

41 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. XIV, p. 120.

Greene's " James the Fourth " and Marlowe's " Jew," the
crafty Barabas. Brand in "The Death of Robert Earl of
Huntington" (1598) swears "by my villainy," as he calmly
describes the poisoning he purposes,42 and with commonplace
directness the murderers of "Two Lamentable Tragedies"
(pr. 1601) plan their crimes.43

Shakespeare does not hesitate at a frank avowal of villainy.
Aaron in "Titus Andronicus" announces in monolog (II, 3,
1-9) that his gold "will beget a very excellent piece of vil
lainy." "Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,"
declares Gloucester in "The Third Part of Henry the Sixth"
(III, 2, 182). He determines on his ambition for the crown,
satirically laments his deformity, admits his hypocrisy and
plots the destruction of those in his path, boasting that he can
" set the murderous Machiavel to school." The whole speech,
seventy-two lines in length, is a majestic prelude to the solilo
quies of "Richard the Third," the opening of which is even
more explicit in self-characterization. Here Gloucester de
scribes himself as " subtle, false and treacherous " and pro
claims his determination " to prove a villain." Mr. Brandes
relates that, when J. L. Heiberg refused to produce " Richard
the Third " at the Royal Theater at Copenhagen, " he doubted,
justly enough, the psychological possibility of this phrase."44
Critics have often caviled at it, and justly, as Mr. Brandes
says, from a psychological point of view. As a dramaturgic
device, however, it is simple and effective. Only Gloucester
knows of his villainy, and, accordingly, he reveals it at the
outset in no unmistakable terms. Throughout the action, he
keeps the audience informed as to his diabolical intentions.45
A certain histrionic glamor is attained in the monolog in which
gloating is substituted for plotting, the famous "Was ever
woman in this humor woo'd?" (I, 2, 228-263). Again, with
all the candor of Hypocrisy of the morality-play, Gloucester
lays bare his double dealing:

" Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. VIII, p. 304.

43 Old English Plays, edited by Bullen, Vol. IV, pp. 19, 24.

** William Shakespeare, p. 127.

** For example, I, i, 145-162; IV, 2, 61-66; IV, 3, 37-43.

" And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With odd old ends stolen forth of holy writ,
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil " (I, 3, 336-8).

lago is equally explicit but less ornate in his plottings. Ex
cept for the ornamental couplets with which they conclude, his
first two soliloquies are purely expository, stating in so many
words his hatred of the Moor, iterating the cause of this
hatred, — to many critics an insufficient motive, — and selecting
Cassio as the tool for wreaking vengeance (I, 3, 389-410; II,
i, 295-321). The next monolog is entirely expository, giving
the situation in explanation of the ensuing scene (11,3, 5°-63)-
lago's fourth soliloquy, " What's he then that says I play the
villain?" (II, 3, 342-368), admits his own villainy and hatches
more of it, with the audacity, if not the bravura, characteristic
of Gloucester. Here, as in the case of Gloucester's determi
nation to prove a villain, we must admit with Professor Camp
bell, that, " in making lago characteristize his reasons as ' di
vinity of hell/ perhaps the poet oversteps the limit of psycho
logical truth."46 Finally lago attains poetic utterance (III, 3,
321-329). In his generalizations on jealousy, only one verse
of exposition occurs, " I will in Cassio's lodging lose this nap
kin;" and his last bit of soliloquizing (IV, I, 45-48) sounds a
brief note of exultation.

Although the soliloquies of the instigator of the by-plot of
" Lear " do not occupy the conspicuous position accorded those
of Gloucester and lago, Edmund's comments are also down
right in their revelation of villainy, — especially in his first and
last soliloquies, "Thou, Nature, art my goddess" (I, 2, 1-22),
and "To both these sisters have I sworn my love" (V, i,
55-69)- Edmund, however, does not acknowledge his villainy
as such. Equally complacent is the dastardly Cloten of " Cym-
beline," whose nefarious plottings indicate his nature more
plainly than self-assertion (III, 5, 132-150; IV, I, 1-27).
Such schemings for the lawless gratification of passion still
persist in second rate melodrama. A striking soliloquy on this

48 Tragic Drama in Aeschylus, Sophocles and Shakespeare, p. 239. See
also the trenchant observations on this point by E. E. Stoll, " Anachronism
in Shakespeare Criticism," Modern Philology, April, 1910, Vol. VII, p. 561.

theme occupies the greater part of the third act of " Antony "
(1831), the best constructed play by the elder Dumas.

The Shakespearean villain is not always diabolically direct
in self-assertion. Unlike Edmund and Cloten, Proteus ("Two
Gentlemen," 11,6, 1-43) and Angelo (" Measure for Measure,"
II, 2, 162-187) both admit their evil intentions, but strive to
excuse them in the name of love. The king in " Hamlet " re
veals his pernicious purpose in ambiguously regal verbiage
(IV, 4, 60-70). Macbeth^" To be thus is nothing" (III, i,
48-72) indicates a p^cHological attitude which makes crime
possible, but his wickecTcTesigns are so unobtrusively portrayed
that they are scarcely related to the expository soliloquy. Once
he states a definite purpose, — "I go and it is done;" (II, i,
62) but, preceded by the vision of the dagger and accompanied
by the tolling of the bell, the soliloquy bears little resemblance
to the bald declarations of preceding murderers. Subsequently,
however, visions and bell-tollings become conventionalized
paraphernalia of soliloquies, especially in the terroristic plays
of the "romantic revival,—" The Castle Spectre" (1797) of M.
G. Lewis, for example (IV, 2).

Lady Macbeth's great soliloquies are like those of her hus-
band in that the phraseology is far removed from common
speech. Her monologs at the opening of the fifth scene reveal
her the she-villain in the " grand style." The pseudo-masculine
vigor of Lady MacEeth's assertions are not dissimilar to those
of the soliloquizing Ragan in the old " Leir," who affirms that
it is an easy matter " to give a stab, or slit a paltry windpipe,"
and who, contemptuous of man and yet longing to unsex her
self, cries out, " O God, but I had been made a man! "47 The
Duchess of Gloucester in "The Second Part of Henry the
Sixth " expresses the same feeling :

" Were I a man, a duke, and next of blood,
I would remove these tedious stumbling blocks
And smooth my way upon their headless necks" (I, 2, 63—65).

It is significant that Shakespeare does not follow the tradi
tion of the soliloquizing she-villain in his " Lear," and indeed,

" Six Old Plays, p. 454.

with the exception of this little speech by the Duchess and a
somewhat similar one by Tamora in "Titus Andronicus" (II,
3, TKS-T9T), Lajvjlacbethjs the only woman to give vent to
villainous thoughts in Shakespeare's drama._
**"""The plotting villain states his intention to act. This is_a_
phase of the_expqsition monolog very frequently assigned lp_
othe_r characters. Hamlet resolves" orT the" play (II, 2, 623-
634), Cassius^determines the means of seducing Brutus (I, 2,
312-326), Isabella plans to appeal to her brother to sacrifice
himself (II, 4, 171-187), — these intentions and many more are
set forth in soliloquy. The same device is occasionally used to
dispose of a character: thus Pistol ("Henry the Fifth," V, I,
85-94) and Parolles ("All's Well," IV, 3, 366-376) determine
on their future careers.

NARRATION

The expository soliloquy has been used as long as the solilo
quy has existed, not only for indicating events of the future,
but also of the past and the present. The narrative of the past
appears in classical and early English drama most often as the
initial exposition monolog, but it becomes more frequent
throughout the action, until, in Elizabethan days, it is the play
wright's favorite method for obviating all difficulties of story
telling. Whenever anything is to be explained, a character
steps forth with the information for the audience.

Shakespeare's narrative soliloquies are well nigh innumer
able. The monologs of the three parts of " Henry the Sixth "
are verbosely narrative, while those of " The Comedy of
Errors " deftly exhibit facets of the main plot, after the man
ner of classical comedy, but with much greater condensation.
The Courtezan's summary of events (IV, 3, 82-97), for exam
ple, is as crisply expository as any of the monologs of Plautus
or Terence. The Elizabethan narrative soliloquy, like that of
Plautus and Terence, often recounts dialog. A curious in
stance is afforded by Tyrrel's description of the killing of the
princes in " Richard the Third," as told him by the two mur
derers (IV, 3, i, 22). Instead of presenting their conversa
tion, the playwright evidently thought it more effective to have
it repeated by a third person.

Frequently it is necessary to show a character's understand
ing of a situation, and manifestly this is most expeditiously
accomplished in soliloquy. Sebastian's astonished narrative
("Twelfth Night," IV, 3, 1-21) and Diana's clear comprehen
sion of the intrigue of "All's Well" (IV, 2, 67-76) leave no
doubt regarding their attitudes. Perhaps the most unobtrusive
exposition is attained in Hamlet's first soliloquy (I, 2, I2O/-
159), which, though ostensibly a passionate outburst on the
weariness of life, conveys indelibly the information that his
mother, within a month after her good husband's funeral, has
married his wicked brother. Usually such necessary informa
tion is bluntly obtruded. So Timon's financial embarrassments
are crudely set forth in two soliloquies (II, I, 1-13; II, 2,
1-8), and his loss of friends is evidenced by another (III, 3,
36-40). Sometimes the entire plot is epitomized by a solilo
quizer. Thus Viola reviews the love-chain of "Twelfth
Night " :

" My master loves her dearly ;
And I, poor monster, fond as much on him ;
And she, mistaken, seems to dote on me " (II, 2, 34-^36).

Likewise, with a little more elaboration, the plight of Imogen
is summarized (" Cymbeline," II, I, 61-70). Such monologs
are not inserted for the sake of telling the audience something
new, but rather for gathering up the threads of the plot and
emphasizing the main issue.

Shakespeare resorts to crass story-telling in the dramatic
romances. The crudity of Belarius's account of his foster-
sons is accentuated by the use of apostrophe. He follows an
apostrophe to Cymbeline with the definite statement, "At three
and two years old, I stole these babes" (III, 3, 101), and, a
moment later, he calls upon his dead wife in order to impart
the additional information, " Thou wast their nurse ; they took
thee for their mother." Equally patent is the vision which
Antigonus of " The Winter's Tale " describes in order to tell
of the antecedents and identity of the babe he carries, as well
as the reason for abandoning it (III, 3, 15-58).

The narrative soliloquy is not confined to past events. On
rare occasions, it reveals contemporary happenings — a device

used especially for indicating the progress of a battle. In
" The Third Part of Henry the Sixth," York's " The army of
the Queen hath got the field" (I, 4, 1-26), and the King's
"This battle fares like to the morning's war" (II, 5, 1-54)
perform this function. Shakespeare generally employs dialog
for his battle effects, but Macbeth has four brief monologs,48
which, accompanied by hurried entrance and exit and brand
ishing of sword, suggest the stir of the fight. A better instance
is furnished by Kyd's "Jeronimo" (1587 c.) when Andrea
gives this graphic pictorial stimulus for the imagination :

" Soldiers drop down as thick as if Death mowed them ;
As scythe-men trim the long-haired ruffian fields,
So fast they fall, so fast to fate life yields."49

This monolog performs in words the office which modern
scenery permits in action — the tumbling corpses in the battle
scene of Rostand's " Cyrano," for example.

The old dramatists sometimes found it convenient to have the
soliloquizer announce the scene, a fact indicated by the setting
and the program of the modern play. Thaliard in " Pericles "
observes, "So this is Tyre, and this the court" (I, 3, i).
Coriolanus enters with the remark, "A goodly city is this
Antium" (IV, 4, i), and he proceeds to apostrophize the city,
a device used by Plautus at the opening of the second act of
the " Bacchides." Aristophanes specifies the location with even
greater precision, when he has Dicaeopolis of "The Achar-
nians " say, " These are the boundaries of my market-place."50

In Greek and Roman tragedy, exalted descriptions of nature,
rather than specific locations, are given by soliloquizers, a tradi
tion inspiring Elizabethans with some exquisite descriptions.
It is interesting to note that ancient Sanskrit drama abounds
in similar passages. Charudatta, the protagonist of "The
Toy-Cart," soliloquizes on an impending storm51 with varied
and colorful similes — a much more graphic word-painting than
the monologic treatment of the same theme in " The Winter's

48 V, 7, 1-4, 11-13, 14-23 I V, 8, 1-3.

49 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. IV, p. 388.

60 Bohn Library, Vol. I, p. 29.

61 Select Specimens of the Theater of the Hindus, Vol. I, p. 90.

Tale " (III, 3, 49-56). In the " Sakuntala "52 there is a fervid
description of the moon setting and the sun rising, not wholly
incomparable, as to poetic effect, with Friar Laurence's " The
gray-ey'd morn smiles on the frowning night" (II, 3, 1-8).
To be sure, nature treatment in the drama has never been con
fined to soliloquies, but perhaps in them it finds its best oppor
tunities. Certainly the playwright chooses monolog rather
than dialog when he wishes to tell the audience the exact set
ting. "Romeo and Juliet" affords another instance, when
Romeo makes the imaginary scene vivid in his account of the
apothecary and his shop, which concludes with the remark,
"As I remember, this should be the house" (V, i, 55).

Another form of narration which is generally, though not
invariably, found in monolog, may be defined by the means
rather than the end, — namely, the reading of a letter. The
formula is simple: the soliloquizer reads a letter aloud and
comments on it. Thus two points in the exposition are effected, —
first, the letter itself which usually bears directly on the plot,
and second, the speaker's attitude toward the new aspect of
the story, an added element of interest. The device is a fa
vorite one in romantic drama. " Gismond of Salerne " (1568)
has an ingenious trick, transcribed from Boccaccio,53 serving
to introduce the letter. Guisharde, while soliloquizing, acci
dentally breaks the cane Gismond has given him, and he finds
her letter inclosed within (III, 3, 1-88). Usually the letter is
introduced clumsily. In "Arden of Feversham" (pr. 1592),
Michael remarks, " I have gotten such a letter as will touch the
painter : and thus it is."54 He proceeds to read it and is over
heard. Marlowe several times avails himself of the letter-
reading soliloquy, most conspicuously at the opening of " Ed
ward the Second," where the king's letter, together with Gave-
ston's comment thereon, furnishes an admirable exposition of
the first part of the plot.

"Translation of Monier Williams, p. 81.

M J. W. Cunliffe, " Gismond of Salerne," Publications of the Modern Lan
guage Association of America, June, 1906, pp. 438-439. A linguistic point in
the soliloquy, Dr. Cunliffe shows, indicates that Boccaccio, and not Painter,
is the source.

M Edited by Nicolaus Delius, p. 28.

Shakespeare uses the contrivance a number of times, but not
always for purely expository purposes. Tjie_Jetter-reading
soliloquies of Hotspur (II, 3, 1-39), Brutus (II, I, 44-58),
Malvolio (II, 5, 91 ff.) and Lady Macbeth (I, 5, 1-31) all
influence their respective plots, but indirectly through char
acter, the emphasis being on the psychological attitude of the
soliloquizer toward the letter. Hotspur's anger, the credulity
of Brutus, Malvolio's gullibility and the ambition oO .adv-
Macbeth are so_interesting in themselves that they are not
expository~in a primary sense. On the other hand, Mistress
Page's reading of the love letter from Falstaff ("Merry
Wives," II, i, 1-31), the Countess's perusal of the missive
from her runaway son ("All's Well," III, 2, 21-34), and Pisa-
nio's contemplation of his master's written command ("Cym-
beline," III, 2, 1-22), — these are directly and vitally connected
with the plot. The instance in " Cymbeline " is very theatrical.
Pisanio is maddened by the letter which directs him to murder
his mistress. Her entrance at this juncture and her subsequent
perusal of the note are rendered effective and intelligible by the
letter-reading soliloquy which opens the scene.

The convention as here set forth, however, does not com
pare, as to complexity or theatricality, with its use in Calderon's
"El Medico de su Honra."55 There Gutierre, while solilo
quizing, draws a curtain and discovers his wife Mencia writing.
He seizes her letter and she faints. He reads the letter, and,
after writing a note for her, goes off. She recovers, and,
during a long soliloquy, she finds her husband's missive, and
reads aloud his assurance of her death. Thus a tremendously
sensational situation is constructed by means of a series of
soliloquies in which letter-reading is an important feature.

English playwrights have not favored such complications
of the device, but, as a simple means of exposition, it has been
employed at intervals, even in the melodrama of recent years.
John Tobin uses it in "The Curfew" (III, 3), a successful
acting piece of the early nineteenth century, and, at the end of
the century, Pinero resorts to it a number of times, notably in
"The Cabinet Minister"

65 Bibliotecallassica, edited by D. M. Menendez Pelayo, Vol. XXXVI, p. 92.
56 Walter H. Baker edition, pp. 3, 44, 103.

CRITICAL COMMENT

As soon as critics notice the soliloquy, they object to it as a
means of exposition. " First of all," says the Abbe d'Aubignac
in his "Pratique du Theatre" (i657),57 "an actor must never
make a Monologue, which he addresses to the Audience, with a
design to inform them of something they are to know; but
there must be found out something in the Truth of the Action
that may be colourable to make him speak in that manner.
Else 'tis a fault in the Representation, of which both Plautus
and Terence are guilty." Dryden's "Essay of Dramatic
Poesy" (1665) takes even a stronger stand against the
monolog, "to which unnatural way of narration Terence is
subject in all his plays."58 He disapproves of the soliloquy
with which Dorias opens the fourth act of the " Eunuch," " be
cause she was presumed to speak directly to the audience, and
to acquaint them with what was necessary to be known, but
yet should have been so contrived by the poet as to have been
told by persons of the drama to one another." Today Mr.
Archibald Henderson expresses the same conviction, when he
characterizes this type of soliloquy as reprehensible, "because
it seeks to give information which may be more veraciously
imparted in more natural ways."59 D'Aubignac leaves the in
ference that the narrative soliloquy has a right to existence if
properly motived, while Dryden would apparently reform it
altogether, suggesting dialog in its stead. Dryden's is unques
tionably the modern point of view, — yet modern only in the
restricted sense of the last few years ; in the eighties there were
many conspicuous survivals of the narrative monolog — Mr.
Posket's long account of the night's adventures, for example,
in the third act of Pinero's " Magistrate " (1885). Whether or
not we approve of the soliloquy as a revelation of thought and
passion, it is certain that we condemn the expository soliloquy.
The chief cause for the discredit into which the soliloquy has
fallen of late, according to Dr. Eugen Kilian, is to be attributed
to the " Expositionsmonolog " — a lame makeshift, he styles it,

87 Englished as The Whole Art of the Stage in 1684, p. 58.

08 Dryden's Essays on the Drama, edited by Wm. Strunk, Jr., p. 31.

59 North American Review, March, 1909, p. 440.

for informing the audience in soliloquy of that which clumsy
technic is unable to convey in other fashion — and the " Selb-
stcharakterisierungsmonolog," revealing the purposes of the
author.60 Dr. Kilian does not consider the narrative monolog
in any form a true soliloquy, because it implies a consciousness
of the audience — the same objection raised by the Abbe
d'Aubignac and John Dryden. The great majority of Shake
speare's soliloquies, says the German commentator, are guilty
of this fault.

Our study corroborates the truth of the assertion that the
majority of Shakespeare's soliloquies are expository.
Whether or not this is to be deplored, depends largely on the
point of view. Measured by the historical, rather than the
modern, standard, there is ample justification for Shakespeare.
As Dr. Kilian points out, there is a vast difference between
the Elizabethan stage and the present one. With spectators on
three sides of the stage, as well as upon it, close contact with
the audience was inevitable; but, neverthless, very rarely can
the Shakespearean monologist be convicted of directly address
ing his hearers.61

The Shakespearean narrative soliloquy, however, implies an
audience, and this, critics agree, is a defect in technic. What
may be said in extenuation of Shakespeare's usage? First,
let us remember, the spectators are on three sides of the actors ;
second, the Elizabethan audience demand a large amount of
story, and the exposition monolog is a most expeditious medium
for presenting and clarifying plots and by-plots ; and third, — an
important fact for the historical critic, — the various devices for
revealing identity, disguise, character, intention and narration
in general are at hand for Shakespeare's use. They have an
ancient lineage, and all are passed .on to posterity.

The question is, what does Shakespeare do with his tradi
tional materials? In almost every case, he improves them.
The initial exposition monolog he uses only once, but then with
masterly precision and daring. Self-identification is a crude
contrivance at best, but he finds it convenient on three or

60 Shakespeare Jahrbuch, Vol. XXXIX, p. xvii.

61 See pp. 103-107 of this dissertation.

four occasions, and he employs the prepared entrance freely.
There are a half dozen graceful explanations of disguise in
Shakespeare's dramas, not conspicuously superior, however, to
those of predecessors or successors. The same may be said
of the few monologs in which he indicates the place, or furthers
the plot by means of letter-reading. After all, these are, for
the most part, inconsequential instances of the expository
soliloquy. Prince Hal's self -characterization, on the other
hand, is unpleasantly conspicuous. Here is an artistic blemish,
not because the speaker characterizes himself, but because he
fails to do so. As we have observed, his attempt to establish
his respectability produces the reverse impression, and he is
hoist with his own petard.

In regard both to quantity and content, however, there are
only two conspicuous varieties of the Shakespearean exposi
tion monolog, those of the plotter and of the narrator. Simple
narratipnjsjhe primary ob|ectofalarge percentage of SHakg^
.. It constitutes practically the sole purpose

of his early monologs, but even here the author improves on
his models. Thus, though all of the monologs of " The
Comedy of Errors " are as dogmatically narrative as those of
Plautus and Terence, they are shorter and more pointed.
Again, the story of the murder which we have noted in
" Richard the Third " is unlike the crude narratives of con
temporary drama in that it is told with pathos and sympathy.
Hamlet's first soliloquy marks the culmination of monologic
exposition, so deftly is the speaker's feeling intermingled with
facts intended for the audience. In the dramatic romance,
especially in " Cymbeline," the playwright grows careless of
verisimilitude, and inserts long monologs, baldly narrative, for
the elucidation of the complicated intrigue. While these were
doubtless acceptable to their audience, they cannot but make the
judicious grieve.

The villains and other characters who state their intention
to act, seem to have a better dramaturgic reason for existence.
The narrators might tell their stories to their fellows; not
so the plotters. William Congreve's defence of this species
of soliloquy in his "Epistle Dedicatory" to his "Double

Dealer" (1694) is worthy of serious consideration: "It often
times happens to a man to have designs which require him to
himself, and in their nature cannot admit of a confidant.
Such, for certain, is all villainy; and other less mischievous
intentions may be very improper to be communicated to a
second person." Congreve's contention is a fair statement of
the problem of the old playwright. In recent years, the de
piction of villainy, modified by the realistic movement in
letters, has not been dependent upon the soliloquy. In fact,
the disappearance of the melodramatic villain is coincident
with the waning of his monolog, and in the cheap theaters
where he persists, he still soliloquizes. Shakespeare's villains
and his host of other characters with "less mischievous in
tentions " show the contrivance as thoroughly practicable for
the Elizabethan stage. Doubtless the outcome of the devil's
monologs in miracle and morality, the soliloquies of Gloucester
and lago are primarily theatrical rather than psychological,
although they are projected with vigor and grace ; but, without
them, two of the greatest acting dramas of the world would be
nought. Indeed, if the strictures of modern criticism, or of
that of Dry den, or even of the Abbe d'Aubignac, were literally
applied to Shakespeare, and all of the expository soliloquies
were cut, — in such a case, many of the comedies would be
hopelessly mutilated and a majority of the tragedies would be
rendered unintelligible. The supposition, preposterous in
itself, nevertheless indicates the significance of the Shake
spearean soliloquy as a means of exposition.

CHAPTER IV

THE SHAKESPEAREAN SOLILOQUY AN ACCOMPANIMENT OF
THE ACTION

The soliloquy is of value in the structure of the drama not
only as a means of direct exposition but also as an accompani
ment of the action. The latter function is performed in three
ways: as an explanation of accompanying "business"; as an
accompaniment of an entrance, or of an exit, or as a link be
tween the two; and as a highly complex convention with
pantomimical accessories, the overheard soliloquy.

MISCELLANEOUS " BUSINESS "

" Business " is an elastic term applied to almost any physical
action occurring on the stage. When an action is assigned to
a solitary character, the spectators must thoroughly understand
its meaning, and, as a rule, this can only be accomplished by
soliloquy. To illustrate: if Arthur in "King John" were
merely to leap from a height and then lie inanimate, the on
lookers would be mystified and consequently annoyed by the
proceeding. Although Shakespeare condensed the two parts
of "The Troublesome Reign" into one, he wisely retained,
with only slight alterations, Arthur's explanatory monolog,
"The wall is high, and yet will I leap down" (IV, 3, i-io),
concluding with a dying gasp, after the jump, " Heaven take
my soul, and England keep my bones!" The act of leaping
was explained in soliloquy as long ago as the " Toy Cart " and
as recently as Byron's " Manfred." Sthavaraka opens a scene
in the Hindu drama (u. s., p. 165) with a monolog preliminary
to jumping from a balcony, while Manfred's long soliloquy
reveals his intention to suicide by leaping from a cliff (I, 2).

Many other actions occur in Shakespeare with monologic
interpretations. We have already observed how the author
improves upon his predecessor by explaining Prince Hal's put-

ting on the crown.1 Even the most obvious motions have to be
carefully elucidated for the benefit of the spectators. There
fore Aaron announces that he is burying gold ("Titus An-
dronicus," I, 3, 1-9), and Edmund that he is wounding his
arm (" Lear," II, I, 35-37)- The squeezing of the magic juice
on the eyes of the sleepers in " A Midsummer-Night's Dream "
is accompanied by explanatory incantations,2 as indeed, to cite
a remote parallel, is the poisoning of the cloak by Seneca's
Medea (IV, 2).

Most impressive of all Shakespearean soliloquies which ac
company " business " is that of lachimo in Imogen's chamber
("Cymbeline," II, 2, 11-51). The situation is furnished by
Boccaccio, but Shakespeare adds many touches, such as the
removal of the bracelet. It is lachimo's voicing his thoughts
and passions, as well as his writings of the inventory, which
intensifies the effectiveness of the episode. A not dissimilar
contrivance is the long soliloquy of the thief in " The Toy-
Cart" (pp. 62-64) who breaks into a chamber, inventories its
contents, and ponders over the sleepers. Monologic accom
paniment of " business " in the presence of a character asleep
must have been keenly relished by the spectators of the Nor
wich Whitsun play on the Creation and Fall (1533 c.) when
the Pater removed a rib from the sleeping Adam and con
verted it into Eve.3

SLEEP ^/

The monolog is often used to indicate sleep — either prepara
tion for sleep, talking in the sleep, or apostrophizing the
sleeper. Examples of the last form occur in the speeches of
" Cymbeline " and " A Midsummer-Night's Dream " which we
have just been discussing. These pieces also show the solilo
quizer going to sleep. Such is the purpose of Imogen's prayer
(II, i, 8-10), and such the monologs of Demetreus (III, 2,
82-87; 426-430), Lysander (III, 2, 413-420), Helena (III,
2, 431-436), and Hermia (III, 2, 442-447). Helena thus pre-

1 See ante, p. 29. ,

1 II, 2, 27-34, 66-83 J III, 2, 448-463.

'Manly, Vol. I, p. i.

ludes her slumber:

" Sleep, that sometimes shuts up sorrow's eye,
Steal me awhile from mine own company."

" The Toy-Cart " affords an instance of this type of soliloquy
(p. 59), Shakespeare's predecessors occasionally employ it,4
Racine opens "Les Plaideurs " with a comic version of the
device, while Mr. Bernard Shaw uses it most realistically to
close the first act of his "Arms and the Man" (1894), where
the hero, only partially awake, strives in vain to fight off the
drowsiness which finally overcomes him. The scene in
" Lear " in which Kent is shown in the stocks concludes in
much the same fashion (II, 2, 177-180).

Talking in the sleep is by no means an uncommon form of
monolog. " The strings, my lord, are false," says the partially
awakened Lucius ("Julius Caesar," IV, 3, 292). Shakespeare
also uses the device as a transition from slumber to soliloquy;
Hermia's soliloquy (II, 2, 145-156) begins in this way, and so
does Imogen's (IV, 2, 291-295). Talking in the sleep occurs
in pieces as widely divergent as "The Clouds" of Aristo
phanes,5 "The Toy-Cart" (p. 63), Lessing's "Minna von
Barnhelm" (I, i), Schiller's "Rauber" (II, 2), -the " Caius
Gracchus" of Sheridan Knowles (IV, 4), and the "Ulysses"
of Mr. Stephen Phillips (III, i). To be sure, this type of
monolog, like the sleep-walking scene of Lady Macbeth,
scarcely ranks as soliloquy, since it is not conscious utterance ;
but it seems worth a note in passing, in connection with the
other monologic contrivances for the portrayal of sleep.

A common device in Elizabethan times is the soliloquy over
the sleeper. In this category fall lachimo's sensuous descrip
tion of Imogen (II, i, 14-23), Oberon's grotesque spell over
Titania (II, 2, 27-34), and the exquisite apostrophe of Brutus
to the sleeping Lucius (II, i, 229-233 ; IV, 3, 267-272). These
speeches are not merely rhetorical ornaments : they also inform
the audience that the recumbent figure is asleep. Shake
speare's immediate predecessors and successors often make

* For example, Lyly's " Endimion," Works, edited by Bond, Vol. Ill, p. 38.
1 Comedies, translated by Wm. J. Hickie, Vol. I, p. 118.

use of the contrivance. Lyly's " Endimion " has an apostro
phizing incantation (Vol. II, p. 38), a trick frequently repeated
in "A Midsummer-Night's Dream." Most concise is Light-
born's soliloquy in Marlowe's "Edward the Second:" "He
sleeps" (V, 5). Greene's "Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay"
contains a comic apostrophe to the sleeper (Sc. XI), Beau
mont's "Knight of the Burning Pestle" a romantic one (III,
i), while Evadne's stirring apostrophe to the king whom she
is about to murder, in "The Maid's Tragedy" of Beaumont
and Fletcher (V, 2), is used for tragic effect. In imitation of
Elizabethan technic, the device recurs in the drama of the
romantic revival. Shelley's " Cenci" (1819) contains a typical
instance (V, 3), and the fourth act of Talfourd's "Ion"
(1836) opens with a situation parallel to that in "The Maid's
Tragedy."

A variant of the soliloquy over the sleeper is the soliloquy
over one who has fainted, a device used at intervals from the
eighth to the nineteenth century. Makaranda in the Hindu
drama " Malati and Madhava " apostrophizes his friend who
has fainted,6 in much the same fashion that Claude Melnotte
in " The Lady of Lyons " calls upon his beloved who has lost
consciousness. The nearest approach to the convention in
Shakespeare is the Nurse's summoning of Juliet (IV, 5, 1-15),
who, lying in a trance, is first mistaken as asleep and then as
dead. This is an unusual occurrence, however, as apostrophes
to the sleeping or dead are almost invariably given not only for
emotional effect but also for informing, or re-informing, the
audience as to the real condition of the prostrate person.
Swoon, sleep and death are difficult to differentiate on the
stage, and hence the necessity of verbal explanation. Thus,
after the soliloquy of Enobarbus ("Antony and Cleopatra,"
IV, 9), the eavesdropping soldier suggests, "He sleeps," but
the Sentry retorts, " Swoons rather," and a moment later he
announces, " The hand of death hath raught him."

DEATH

Soliloquies over the dead are almost a mannerism of "The
Second Part of Henry the Sixth," where they occur five times,

8 Select Specimens of the Hindu Drama, Vol. II, p. 101.

thrice as an accompaniment for bearing off the corpse.7 Owing
to the absence of a front curtain for the Elizabethan stage,
such awkward contrivances for disposing of the slain were
necessary. In "The Third Part of Henry the Sixth" (II,
5), two soliloquizers drag in the bodies of their adversaries
and also carry them out. To be sure, Shakespearean apos
trophes to the dead are not always utilitarian ;8 Mary Antony's
"O pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth" (III, i, 254-
275) is primarily histrionic; Imogen's lament over the head
less trunk (IV, 2, 295-332) exists for the sake of the situation,
while the Prince's apostrophe to the pseudo-dead Falstaff
(V, 4, 102-110) accentuates the ludicrous effect of the monolog
which follows. Ordinarily, however, such laments are intended
to establish beyond a doubt the fact that the subject of the
monolog is dead, as well as to move the beholder with pity
and terror. This is the function of the Prince's soliloquy over
Hotspur (V, 4, 87-101) and of Charmian's over Cleopatra
(V, 2, 316-322). In both instances, the soliloquizer com
pletes a sentence of the dying — a trick cleverly burlesqued in
Sheridan's " Critic."9

Soliloquies of the dying are also used for expository pur
poses. In " The Third Part of Henry the Sixth," Clifford's
"Here burns my candle out; ay, here it dies" (II, 6, 1-30)
and Warwick's speech (V, 2, 5-27) in which he asserts that
his eyes are "now dimm'd with death's black veil," — these
soliloquies afford ample preparation for the deaths of their
speakers.

Monologs over the dead and of the dying flourish in Eliza
bethan drama. Both are found in a somewhat embryonic con
dition in the Hegge play of " Noah and Lamech,"10 where the
youth slain by Lamech states clearly in four lines that he is
expiring, and then Lamech, alone with the corpse, utters his

T IV, i, 144-147; IV, 10, 82-90; V, 2, 31-65.

8 Indeed such soliloquies may be regarded, in part at least, as a survival of
the ancient custom of uttering formal laments over the slain — for example,
Hrothgar's lament for Aeschere in Beowulf (11. 1321-1344) and Roland's for
Oliver in the Chanson de Roland (Stanza CLIII).

"Dent edition, III, i, 11. 227, 232.

10 Manly, Vol. I, p. 37-

contrition briefly but poignantly. The early soliloquies are, as
a rule, painfully expository. The dying speech of Stukely in
Peele's " Battle of Alcazar " informs the audience, addressed
as " friends and lordings," of his entire life history, and con
cludes :

" Stukely, the story of thy life is told :
Here breathe thy last, and bid thy friends farewell."11

The last words of Cambises are equally confidential. He ex
plains to the audience the cause of his death, showing them
the sword which " ran me thus into the side, as you right well
may see."12 The final couplet,

" Thus gasping heer on ground I lye ; for nothing I doo care ;
A just reward for my misdeeds my death doth plaine declare,"

seems sufficiently explicit as to stage business, without the
added direction, " Heere let him quake and stir." The speech
by Ambidexter which follows is in the nature of a soliloquy
over the dead, furnishing intelligence as to the moment of
decease :

" But beholde, now with Death he doth strive.
Alas, good king ! alas, he is gone ! "

The monolog of "Ralph with a forked arrow through his
head " in " The Knight of the Burning Pestle " thus parodies
the conclusion of such turgid death soliloquies : " I die ! fly,
fly, my soul, to Grocer's Hall !"13

Marlowe retains the soliloquy as a device for portraying
death: such is the prayer of the wounded Sigismund ("Tam-
burlaine," Part II, II, 3) and such the lament of Theridimas
before removing the body of Olympia (u. s., IV, 3) ; but the
mad ravings of Zabina (" Tamburlaine," Part I, V, i) and
the frenzied apostrophes of Tamburlaine (u. s., II, 4) trans
cend the purely functional in their stress on the emotional
situation. The emotional value of the death soliloquy appeals
strongly to the closet dramatist. Thomas Lovell Beddoes

11 Dramatic Works, edited by Bullen, Vol. I, p. 290.

12 Manly, Vol. I, p. 208.

13 Dramatic Works, edited by Dyce, Vol. II, p. 227.

revels in garish apostrophes to corpses,14 as well as apostrophes
to the abstract conceptions of Death and Sleep. Some of the
greatest passages in Shakespeare are philosophizings on these
themes, but they do not concern the present inquiry into
mechanism. A combination of sentiment and exposition, the
Shakespearean death soliloquy is, as a rule, fundamentally a
part of the machinery of the plot.

SUICIDE

Even more evident is the mechanical aspect of the suicide
soliloquy, which, like that of the dying, purposes to inform
the audience that the meaning of the speaker's motions is
death. A character's falling on his sword or stabbing himself
are movements so hurried that some spectators would not
comprehend them without a word of commentary. Prelimi
nary apostrophes to the fatal weapon are not uncommon.
Aecius, for example, in the " Valentinian " of Beaumont and
Fletcher, kisses his sword and addresses it before killing him
self (IV, 4). Shakespeare often contrives to give the neces
sary information in a couplet:

" Caesar, thou art reveng'd,

Even with the sword that killed thee " (V, 3, 45-46) ;
" Caesar, now be still ;

I kill'd not thee with half so good a will " (V, 5, 50-5 1) ;
" I kissed thee ere I killed thee : no way but this,

Killing myself to die upon a kiss " (V, 2, 258-359).

These brief apostrophes to the departed have their own mean
ing, but they exist primarily to mark the passing of the spirits
of Brutus, Cassius and Othello. Likewise, the soliloquy of
Titinius ("Julius Caesar," V, 3, 80-90) announces his suicide
with his final words, " Come, Cassius' sword, and find Titinius'
heart." The suicide usually makes two points in his monolog :
first, the instrument with which he intends to kill himself; and
second, his approaching death. Juliet's soliloquy (V, 3, 161-
170) performs the dual function:

"Works, edited by Edmund Gosse ; Bride's Tragedy, Vol. I, p. 146, and
Death's Jest Book, Vol. II, p. 121.

" O happy dagger !
This is thy sheath (Stabs herself) ; there rust and let me die."

As stabbing requires verbal elucidation, so the mere action
of drinking from a cup and then falling prone is meaningless,
unless there is an explanation that the cup contains poison.
Romeo's long soliloquy over the body of Juliet (V, 3, 74-120)
explains that he is taking the poison : "O true apothecary, thy
drugs are quick ;" and then, as usual, in such cases, he affirms
his death : " Thus with a kiss I die." Juliet's elaborate solil
oquy preparatory to drinking the potion (IV, 3, 13-58), though
lacking the suicidal intent, has something of the frenzied mood
of self-destruction characteristic of the soliloquizers who
poison themselves. An early analog occurs in " Gismond of
Salerne" (V, 2), when the heroine, lamenting and meditating
revenge, pours a vial of poison into the cup containing her
lover's heart and partakes of the beverage.

The suicide soliloquy has classical precedent, since it is used
by Sophocles when his Ajax, alone on the seashore, indulges
in fervid apostrophe and falls on his sword. It is a far cry
to the long, fantastic and grandiose suicide soliloquy of Ajax
at the conclusion of Heywood's "Iron Age" (pr. 1632). In
troduced with a pageant crossing the stage, interrupted by
Echo responses, illumined by such expressions as " Ha, ha, ha,"
"foh, foh," "sink the Grecian fleete in seas of Ajax blood:
so ho, so ho," and terminated with an address to gods, men,
"Furies, enraged Spirits, Tortures all," — this was surely a
part to tear a cat in. The speech marks the culmination of
the bombast and violence of the suicide soliloquy popular
among the Elizabethans, — for example, the monlog during
which Isabella of "The Spanish Tragedy" cuts down the
arbor and then herself (IV, 2), and those during which Baja-
zeth and his wife brain themselves (" Tamburlaine," Part I, V,
i ) . Shakespeare eliminates the grotesque but not the horrible :
he retains sword, dagger and poisoned cup, but so effectively
does he manage them that his methods have become laws for
practically all subsequent suicide soliloquies. In 1887, Mr.
Pinero made use of the vial device for the suicide15 of his pro-

15 When the happy ending was substituted, the soliloquy was altered from
the point where the speaker is about to take the poison.

tagonist in " The Profligate." During the long monolog, Ren-
shaw pours the poison and drinks it. Then, according to the
old formula, the poison is named for the audience: "A line
to Murray — telling him — poison — morphine — message"; and
death is presaged in the fragmentary sentences beginning " The
light is out."

ENTRANCE, LINK AND EXIT SPEECHES
The soliloquy accompanying the dramatic depiction of sui
cide, death, sleep and stage business in general, is primarily
expository. Not necessarily explanatory of the action are the
brief soliloquies accompanying the departure of a character or
his arrival or bridging a short interval between an exit and an
entrance. These we shall term, respectively, exit speeches, en
trance speeches and links. Freytag speaks of monologs as
opening an act, closing it, or being between two scenes of com
motion.16 The monologs we are about to examine have the
special function of opening, joining and closing episodes. To
be sure, it is evident that all soliloquies, by virtue of their
nature, must be either at the beginning or the end of a scene,
or between two conversations; but the entrance, link and exit
speeches exist because of their location. Usually very short,
they are employed to give ease and finish to a scene ; and, para
doxical as it may seem, these artificial speeches are used to
avoid the appearance of artifice.

THE ENTRANCE SOLILOQUY \l

Thus the entrance soliloquy prevents the simultaneous ap
pearance of A at one door and B at the other. Even though
they were meeting by appointment, they probably would not
arrive at the same instant. Consequently A comes on a mo
ment before B, and fills the interval with some remark — very
likely stating what the appointment is. So Eglamour in " The
Two Gentlemen " observes,

" This is the hour that Madam Silvia
Entreated me to call and know her mind" (IV, 3, 1-2).

19 Technique of the Drama, translated by Elias MacEwan, p. 219.

Again at the opening of the fifth act, he announces,

" And now it is about the very hour
That Silvia, at Friar Patrick's cell, should meet me."

In each case, the lady appears forthwith. Shakespeare soon
abandons the obvious contrivance of meeting by appointment,
but his entrance soliloquies generally, in some way, prepare
for the ensuing scene. For example, Oberon wonders what
has happened to his queen (III, 2, 1-3), whereupon Puck
enters and informs him.

" Romeo and Juliet " affords the best illustrations of the en
trance soliloquy purely as such, without any ulterior purpose.
Romeo's

" Can I go forward when my heart is here ?
Turn back, dull earth, and find thy center out " (II, i, 1-2)

marks both his appearance and his disappearance, and like the
famous line with which he enters the orchard (II, i, i), it has
no connection with the ensuing scene. So Friar Laurence's
muttering,

" Saint Francis be my speed ! how oft tonight
Have my old feet stumbled at graves! " (V, 3, 121-122)

merely indicates his presence in the tomb. Such speeches are
pleasing interludes between the stirring episodes of the drama.
Shakespeare is also fond of the entrance soliloquy for facili
tating his battle scenes. Rest from the heat of the fight is
the theme of the entrance speeches in " Troilus and Cressida "
(V, 8, 1-4) and " The Third Part of Henry the Sixth " (II, 3,
1-5). "Rest, sword, thou hast thy fill of blood and death,"
says Hector ; and Warwick asserts, " Spite of spite, needs must
I rest awhile." l^acbeth's despondent preludes to his encoun
ters with young Siward and with Macduff (V, 7, 1-4; V, 8,
1-3) add excitement to the mood of the battle, but their im
portant dramaturgic function is to offer an excuse for the
arrival of Macbeth before that of his opponent. If Macbeth
and Siward or Macbeth and Macduff were to enter simulta
neously, meet and proceed to fight, the manipulation would be
palpable. As it is, the entrance soliloquies permit an appear
ance of jnaturalism in the encounter.

The entrance speech has been a popular contrivance from
ancient to recent times. Sanskrit drama furnishes numerous
instances. Five acts of " The Toy-Cart " open with a little
monolog spoken by a servant.17 Entrance soliloquies have
proved especially serviceable in comedy : the " Lysistrata " of
Aristophanes, and the fourth act of the "Mercator" of Plautus
open with the device, and Moliere employs it frequently.
English comedy has made use of the entrance speech from the
time of "Gammer Gurton's Needle"18 (pr. 1575) to that of
Pinero's "Cabinet Minister" (1890). The entrance soliloquy
opening the Pinero farce constitutes what is known in theatrical
parlance as "patter talk," since it has no relation to the plot
and accordingly may be missed by the spectators while seating
themselves. In this respect, the brief initial entrance speech
differs from the more elaborate initial exposition monolog
which is necessary for an understanding of the plot. Romantic
as well as comic dramas afford many examples of the entrance
soliloquy. Beaumont and Fletcher abound in entrance, link
and exit speeches, and so do the pieces of the romantic revival
of the early nineteenth century. In Thomas Dibdin's stage
adaptation of Scott's "Heart of Midlothian," there are four
entrance monologs which are used to prepare entrances.19 The
prepared entrance often concludes the link as well as the en
trance soliloquy. It is the sole office of Falstaff's link in " The
Merry Wives" (III, 5, 58-60).

THE LINK

The link, we have observed, serves to join episodes. This,
according to Cailhava in his treatise " De 1'Art de la Comedie "
(i772),20 is a prime requisite, without which the monolog is

17 U. s., pp. 42, 59, 72, 105, 143.

"Manly, Vol. II, p. 119.

"^Cumberland's Plays, No. 3, pp. 9, 17, 31, 32.

20 Edition of 1786, Vol. I, p. 225. Also, edition of 1772, Vol. I, p. 257:
" II faut necessairement preparer et amener d'un peu loin un autre person-
nage, qui, a 1'aide d'un monologue, mette une distance vraisemblable entre
les personnes qui ne doivent pas se trouver ensemble." Sonnenfels, Gottsched,
Boileau and Voltaire had equally clear conceptions of the function of the
link : see Frierich Ousel's Der dramatische Monolog in der Poetik des 17. und

defective. All soliloquies, it is true, unless they open or close
an act, perform the function of joining in a general way, but
the link, in the restricted sense in which we use the term, has
that special object. It is a short monolog rilling the interval
between an exit and an entrance, a factor of the structure,
rather than of the plot. In other words, no matter how illu
minating a remark it may be, it is fundamentally a mechanical
contrivance for bridging a gap in the action. As the entrance
soliloquy is a graceful subterfuge for preventing the simulta
neous appearance of A and B, so the link relieves the neces
sity of having A enter the moment that B leaves the stage.

Frequently the link is only a line or two in length, some
times merely an interjection between an exit and an entrance.
The shortest soliloquies on record, the "Ah " in " Tartuffe "21
and the " Hm " in " The Pillars of Society,"22 are links. Both
are expressions of emotion occurring between an exit and an
entrance, when the speaker is alone. Such is King John's
exclamation, "My mother dead!" (IV, 2, i8i).23 Henry the
Fifth's " God-a-mercy, old heart! thou speak'st cheerfully"
(IV, i, 34), as Erpingham leaves him, illustrates a form of the
soliloquy not uncommon in the link, the apostrophe to the just
departed.24

Falstaff uses the address to the departed in a link evidently
intended to produce a broadly comic effect ("Henry IV, Part

II, i, 2, 255-260). The comic link is a variety Shakespeare
frequently employs.25 Sometimes the interlude between an
exit and an entrance assumes the form of a little poem. Such

1 8. Jahrhunderts, Hamburg, 1897, pp. 16, 17. It is curious that the type has
been neglected by English critics. Diisel notes Lessing's use of the " Pausen-
fiillmonolog " and the " Verbindungsmonolog," pp. 22-25, 42.
21 " Grands ficrivains " edition, IV, i, 1. 1268.

22 Prose Dramas, translation edited by Wm. Archer, p. 210.

23 Cf. Taming of the Shrew, II, i, 37-38, V, i, 7 ; Julius Caesar, III, 2, 265-
266 ; All's Well, II, 3, 282-283 ; As You Like It, I, 2, 269-270 ; Othello, III,
i, 42-43 ; Lear, III, 6, 4-5.

24 Cf. Henry the Fifth, IV, i, 63; As You Like It, I, i, 90-92; Othello,

III, 3, 90-92.

28 Merry Wives, II, 2, 143-149, 156-159, V, 5, 38-40 ; Measure for Measure,
I, 2, 83-85.

are the jingling quatrains of Robin Goodfellow,26 and the sen
tentious quatrain of the Queen in "Hamlet" (IV, 5, 16-20).
The exquisitely lyrical addresses of Brutus to his sleeping page
(II, i, 229-233; IV, 3, 267-274) have a utilitarian as well as
an aesthetic significance. In one case, the speech separates the
departure of the conspirators from the entrance of Portia: if
she came in immediately, it would almost appear that she had
been listening, and, at any rate, the machinery would creak.
Again, if the soliloquy before the apparition of the ghost were
omitted, there would be a notable loss of " atmospheric " effect.
Thus the Shakespearean link, whether interjection or brief
remark, or comical or musical interlude, is deftly fitted into
the structure of the play.

The choral comment of Greek drama performs the function
of the link. Despite the presence of the chorus, however, there
are one or two instances of the device in Aristophanes.27 In
" The Clouds," Strepsiades is assigned a link before knocking
at a door, a contrivance often employed by Moliere,28 and
doubtless by the commedia del arte. Although unobtrusive,
the link is the typical soliloquy in Moliere; for example, the
casual reader or spectator would say that " Le Mariage Force "
has not one soliloquy, but a careful study shows that it con
tains seven links, all spoken by Sganarelle, who is on the stage
during the entire action. Links are used frequently in Sanskrit
drama, and in the plays of all modern nations. Indeed, this
kind of soliloquy seems to have increased in popularity with
the passage of time. When Robert Wilmot recast his " Gis-
mond of Salerne" (1568) as "Tancred and Gismunda"
(1591), he added a link to give plausibility to the movement.29
Shakespeare's predecessors did not use the link so often as he
did, nor he so often as Beaumont and Fletcher. Even Ibsen,
who is credited with having abandoned the soliloquy, puts five

28 A Midsummer-Night's Dream, III, 2, 396-399, 437-440.

27 Translation of Wm. J. Hickie, Vol. I, The Acharnians, p. 10 ; The

Clouds, p. 122.

28 For example, the soliloquies of Sganarelle in L'£cole des Maris, II, 2 ;
II, 4; H, 7; III, 3.

29 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. VII, p. 45-

links in one play, "The Pillars of Society"30 (1877). True,
these are chiefly ejaculations, but it must be remembered that
Shakespeare has some of the same type. As late as " Michael
and His Lost Angel" (1896) by Mr. Henry Arthur Jones, the
link has its vogue,31 and, in fact, it still survives.32

The link often indicates a passage of time. This occurs
when A has to leave the scene, perform some errand, and
return. Stage time is invariably less than actual time, and,
accordingly, a few words of solioquy by B will give the effect
of a sufficient interval elapsing before the reappearance of A.
So the Second Murderer in " Richard the Third " speaks three
lines (I, 4, 279-281) during which the First Murderer drags
off the body, disposes of it and comes back. A link of the
same length is twice assigned to Romeo (II, 2, 139-141, 156-
158), while Juliet goes to answer the summons of the Nurse
and returns. An exactly parallel service is performed by the
link of Anasuya in the " Sakuntala " of Kalidasa,33 and simi
lar offices are effected by links in Plautus34 and Terence.35
The "Damon and Pythias " (1564 c.) of Richard Edwards has*
two links,36 closely following the Roman model. Moliere's
" fitourdi " contains a conspicuous illustration of the soliloquy's
indicating the passage of time, for, during Lelie's brief monolog
(II, i, 489-497), Mascarille spreads broadcast the news of
the death of Lelie's father.

Shakespeare is fond of a slightly different form of the time
link, — namely, that which bridges the gap while B is summon
ing C to the presence of A. For example :

" HORATIO. Let them come in. (Exit Attendant.)
I do not know from what part of the world
I should be greeted, if not from Lord Hamlet."
(Enter Sailor.) (IV, 6, 3-5.)

80 U. S., pp. 196, 2IO, 215, 228, 240.

31 Macmillan edition, p. 85.

82 For example, in Act II of M. Bernstein's The Thief.

83 Translation by Monier Williams, p. 79.

34 Translation by H. Riley, Vol. I, Miles Gloriosus, p. 93 ; Bacchides, p. 190.
85 Translation by H. Riley, Heautontimorumenos, p. 162.
36 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. IX, pp. 36, 43.

Even shorter is the link of the King in "All's Well." " Thus
he his special nothing ever prologues," he observes, as Lafeu
goes out and returns, ushering in Helena (II, I, 95). It is
interesting to find at the opening of Mr. Pinero's " Profligate "
a link of precisely the same length and purpose, Hugh Murray
speaking a sentence while his servant goes out and ushers in
Lord Dangars. Thejxmtrivance is twice employed in " Othello "
(IV, 2, 20-23, 107-109), and a well known^pa^sage in " Mac-
beth" accomplishes a^ jmriilar_obj ect. Lady Macbeth, after
'dispatching a servant to find her lord, soliloquizes,

" Nought's had, all's spent,
Where our desire is got without content.
'Tis safer to be that which we destroy
Than by destruction dwell in doubtful joy " (III, 2, 4-7) —

whereupon Macbeth enters. This is the fourth Shakespearean
link we have noted in the form of a quatrain. The rimes sug
gest the ornamental nature of the monologic interlude, but
there are not enough illustrations to show that Shakespeare,
like his contemporary, Lope de Vega, consciously makes a
metrical distinction between soliloquy and dialog. In Lope's
essay, " El Arte nuevo de hazar Comedias en este Tiempo," he
states that the sonnet is an appropriate form for the soliloquy,
and he often puts his theory into practice.

THE EXIT SOLILOQUY

There are four instances in Shakespeare of quatrains, con
sisting of two couplets each, appearing as exit speeches.37
Often the episode of the Elizabethan drama is terminated with
a couplet — or, sometimes, a pair of couplets — and frequently
the scene ends in monolog; hence the coincidence. The func
tion of the monologic conclusion is similar to that of the mono-
logic opening. There was no drop curtain in the Elizabethan
theater, we must remember, making possible the tableaux with
which a modern act may begin or end, and, accordingly, all of
the characters have to go off as well as come on. To have

"Richard III, IV, 2, 123-126; Romeo and Juliet, II, 2, 187-190; Merry
Wives, IV, 2, 106-109 ; Twelfth Night, I, 5, 327-330.

many depart at once is awkward, and so, for the sake of va
riety, one person is often left to say a few words before leaving
the stage. Even to have two people depart together is a more
difficult feat than to have them enter, inasmuch as the exits are
at the rear of the stage, and the actors should not say their final
words with their backs to the audience. It therefore frequently
occurs that when A and B are conversing, A leaves a moment
before B, and the latter has a brief soliloquy, generally ending
in a rime, while he is getting off the stage. The exit speech,
then, like the link and the entrance soliloquy, serves a mechan
ical purpose : it facilitates the departure of the last speaker in
a scene. The rime tag is spoken, presumably, when the actor
is at the exit door, and while he is facing the audience.

Very often Shakespeare's exit soliloquy consists merely of
a couplet.38 As we have noted, he sometimes employs two
couplets, and sometimes three, four, five, or six verses, conclud
ing with a tag. Occasionally prose is used, and there are rare
instances of a line or less serving as an exit speech. The son
carries off his father's body with a single explanatory verse in
"The Third Part of Henry the Sixth" (II, 5, 113) ; Hermia
departs with one line in "A Midsummer-Night's Dream" (III,
2, 344), while Menenius in " Coriolanus " goes off with the
ejaculation, " fie, fie, fie!" (IV, 2, 54). This utterance is truly
a soliloquy, comparable as to length with the exclamatory links
of Moliere and Ibsen.

Like the link, the exit speech may assume the guise of the
^apostrophe to the just departed, — for example, Jessica's ad-
Jdress to the retreating figure of her parent :

" Farewell, and if my fortune be not cross'd,
I have a father, you a daughter lost" (II, 5, S6-57).39

Further, the exit soliloquy is similar to the link and the
entrance speech in that it may consist of a bit of moralizing,

38 Henry VI, Part II, V, 2, 29-30; Two Gentlemen, V, 2, 55-56; Merchant
of Venice, II, 5, 56-57 ; Henry IV, Part I, III, 3, 229-230 ; Hamlet, III, 3,
97-98; Othello, V, i, 128-129; Macbeth, III, 2, 141-142; Pericles, I, i,
170-171.

89 Cf. Richard III, I, 4, 286-290; Romeo and Juliet, II, 2, 187-190; III, 5,
235-242; Troilus and Cressida, III, 3, 313-316.

a brief comment on the plot, or an expression of love or the
like; but, also like the allied monologs, it never conveys new
information. Its purpose is not to narrate the story, but to con
clude the episode.

Sometimes the conclusion is brought about in a comical
fashion, by what is known in the vernacular of the modern
stage as the " gag." Shakespeare is not above this appeal to the
groundlings, — witness the churlish invective of Thersites
("Troilus and Cressida," III, 3, 313-316), Falstaff's giving
vent to his exuberant spirits ("The First Part of Henry the
Fourth," III, 3, 229-230), Mistress Page's jovial pondering on
an old saw ("Merry Wives," IV, 2, 106-109), and Cloten's
indignant iteration of the phrase which chafes his vanity
(" Cymbeline," II, 3, 161). The doggerel couplet terminating
the first act of " Lear " is an indecent " gag," so inappropriate
that it seems spurious.39a

In connection with the exit speech, it is an interesting fact
that all of the eleven soliloquies in " The First Part of Henry
the Sixth " are followed by an exit, and that, although occa
sionally expanded into a sort of choral comment, narrative,
prophetic or premonitory, they usually perform the function of
the exit speech. The piece is unusual in that it ends with an
exit soliloquy, not without precedent, however, as the
" Bacchides " of Plautus has such a conclusion.

Plautus and Terence many times have a soliloquy followed
by an exit, but it is generally narrative in content. The Hindu
dramatists employ it in the true Elizabethan fashion. Early it
creeps into English drama, and Shakespeare's predecessors
establish it as a convention, and his successors avail themselves
of it as often as he does. Beaumont and Fletcher have an
especial fondness for exit speeches long and short, rimed and
unrimed. With the appearance of the drop curtain, exit
speeches diminish in number, but the convention persists, in
isolated instances, through the nineteenth century. Act III of

Ma For the excellent reasons given by A. C. Bradley, in his Shakespearean
Tragedy, pp. 450-452. Professor Bradley makes some interesting observa
tions on the comparative number of soliloquies followed by exits in the
tragedies.

Sheil's "Evadne" (1821) terminates with an exit speech of
two lines, probably due to the fact that it is founded on Shir
ley's ''Traitor" (1631), which contains several exit couplets.
Likewise the fourth act of Miss Mitford's "Rienzi" (1828)
and the first act of her " Otto of Wittelsbach " end with exit
speeches of two lines each. Not as a medieval survival, but as
a modern stage contrivance, Ibsen projects the little soliloquies
which conclude the first and last acts of " A Doll's House "
(1879). These monologs are not accompanied by exits, but
they are virtually exit speeches, since it is their function to give
an artistic finish to the scene.

THE OVERHEARD SOLILOQUY

The overheard soliloquy, with its strange complexities and
inconsistencies, is an important type of the monologic accom
paniment of action. The connection between eavesdropping
and movement is not evident until one remembers that the actor
overhearing a soliloquy invariably indulges in pantomimical by
play, and further, that the overheard soliloquy involves one or
more entrances. Thus it is allied with the monolog accompany
ing stage business and with the entrance, link and exit speech.
Indeed, there is a variety of soliloquy which we shall style the
" unconscious entrance " so intimately associated with the over
heard soliloquy that it seems best to treat it in this connection.

The only similarity between the unconscious entrance and
the entrance soliloquy is that both are spoken as soon as the
soliloquizers enter. The unconscious entrance soliloquy is so
called, because its speaker is unconscious of the person or per
sons already on the stage. The verisimilitude of the situation
is no more to be questioned than that of the convention
which placed two opposing camps on the same Elizabethan
stage.

The soliloquizer who enters oblivious to the presence of
others may or may not be overheard, but, for convenience of
classification, let us confine the term to the monologs which are
not overheard. An illustration is afforded by " The Third Part
of Henry the Sixth," when Edward runs in, with a despairing
cry, apparently oblivious of Warwick, who, as evidenced by his

next speech, is unconscious of Edward's soliloquy (II, 3, 6-8).
In " The Second Part of Henry the Sixth," Iden ruminates in
his garden (IV, 10, 18-25), not noticing Cade, whose apart
shows no indication that he overhears the soliloquy.

The unconscious entrance has an ancient lineage. Polynices
in " The Phoenician Women " of Euripides considers himself
alone when he says, "What ho ! who goes there ? or is it an idle
sound I fear? . . . Well, there is help at hand, for the altar's
hearth is close and there are people in the palace."40 Not until
his next remark does he observe the chorus : " Come, let me
sheathe my sword in its dark scabbard and ask these maidens
standing near the house, who they are." The unconscions
entrance is a favorite contrivance in Roman comedy,41 and in
the old Hindu drama.42 Moliere's soliloquizers often fail to
notice others on the stage. In " Melicerte," little Myrtil comes
in talking to a sparrow in its cage, but the method is not
always so naturalistic. Martine of " Le Medecin Malgre Lui "
vehemently chatters to herself (I, 3) until she bumps into two
men, — producing the desired laugh. Again, while Sganarelle's
wife is soliloquizing (" Sganarelle," I, 5), he enters with a two-
line monolog which' he delivers before he sees her. She con
tinues her soliloquy, unconscious of him, although he interrupts
with three aparts.

Such complexities do not occur on the English stage, where,
oftentimes the convention is ludicrously simple. Preston
emphasizes its absurdity when he has Cambises ask, " Is there
nought to be my help?"43 with Ambidexter only a step away.
From the time of the " Second Shepherds' Play"44 and " Gam
mer Gurton's Needle"45 to that of "The Good Natured
Man "46 and " She Stoops to Conquer,"47 the unconscious

40 Plays, translated by E. P. Coleridge, Vol. II, p. 226.
"Plautus, Vol. I, pp. 178, 189, 304, 382, 556; Vol. II, p. 169. Terence,
pp. 46, 49.

42 Select Specimens of the Hindu Drama, Vol. I, pp. 67, 91, 207; Vol. II,
pp. 20, 193, 293.

43 Manly, Vol. II, p. 208.

44 Manly, Vol. I, pp. 96, 98.
43 Manly, Vol. II, p. 119.

46 "Belles Lettres " edition, pp. 64, 99, 108.

47 Same volume, pp. 179, 207, 215, 226.

entrance has been most serviceable in English comedy, although
it has been used in all forms of drama. Whetstone's Cassandra
concludes her unconscious entrance soliloquy by discovering
Promos in this naive fashion : " See, as I wished, Lord Promos
is in place !"48 As in this case, the device usually follows the
order we have observed in Euripides, a sequence firmly estab
lished by Plautus : first, soliloquy ; second, an apart in which
the other person or persons are discovered; and third, direct
address. Numerous contrivances of this sort, with slight varia
tions, survive in the early nineteenth century.49

Taking advantage of the fact that the unconscious entrance
soliloquy is best suited for comic effects, Shakespeare casts the
discourse of Autolycus on his profession in this mold (" Winter's
Tale," IV, 4, 605-630) . The bystanders are quite as oblivious
to him as he to them, but, when he discovers them, he exclaims,
"If they have overheard me now, why, hanging." This
admission of the possibility of being overheard is interesting,
and perhaps it explains the parenthesis of the soliloquizing
Angelo, "Let no man hear me" ("Measure for Measure," II,
4, 10), — a remark which Dr. Kilian50 points out contends with
our conception of the soliloquy. For the present, however, let
us not attempt to rationalize the overheard soliloquy, since our
immediate object is merely to examine it as it occurs.

Sometimes a series of soliloquies is overheard by one char
acter and not by others. This arrangement is used in "The
Third Part of Henry the Sixth " (II, 5), when the son mourns
over the corpse of his father and the father over the corpse of
his son, each soliloquizer unconscious of the other but both
overheard by King Henry. The device is pushed to the utmost
extravagance when the soliloquies of father and son and the
aparts of the king are interlarded, in parallel phraseology,
thus:

" Son. Was ever son so ru'd a father's death ?
Father. Was ever father so bemoan'd his son?
King Henry. Was ever king so griev'd for subjects' woe?"

48 Six Old Plays, p. 27.

49 For example, John O'Keefe's Wild Oats (1791), in Mrs. Inchbald's col
lection, Vol. II, p. 76; and the Alfonso (1802) of M. G. Lewis, published by
J. Bell, p. 2.

50 U. s., p. XXX.

Doubtless the fact that son and father consider themselves
alone was supposed to add to the tragic irony.

A variant of the same device is used for comic effect in
"Love's Labors Lost" (IV, 3). There, when all the solilo
quizers have arrived, Dumain is unconscious of the presence of
his hidden comrades, Longaville conscious only of Dumain, the
king conscious of the other two, and Biron alone, the first on
the stage, comprehends the whimsical situation, that they are
" four woodcocks in a dish." A similar scheme, but not so
elaborated, occurs in " Fair Em " (pr. before 1619), there being
three soliloquizing lovers two of whom are successively over
heard.51

Shakespeare employs the overheard soliloquy of an indi
vidual, as well as of a group, for comic purposes, Malvolio's
rumination on his rimed missive (II, 5), like the ponderings of
the love-sick swains on their sonnets in " Love's Labors Lost,"
is audible to everybody on the stage. Indeed, it is because
Malvolio is overheard that the scene is one of the most laugh
able in Shakespearean comedy. By this means, Malvolio is
shown to nibble and eventually to swallow the bait, to the up
roarious delight of the eavesdroppers, whose hilarity, evi
denced in conspicuous by-play, as well as asides, is quickly
communicated to the audience. The same contrivance is em
ployed in " All's Well," when Parolles lays bare his fears to the
immense satisfaction of the listening conspirators, who inter
rupt with ironic rejoinders by way of asides and finally termi
nate his meditations by seizing and blindfolding him (IV, 2,
27-70). The device makes possible a comic situation of an
entirely different nature in "The First Part of Henry the
Fourth," when the elegy pronounced by Prince Hal over the
supposedly dead Falstaff is overheard by that worthy (V, 4,
102-110). Unless the actor impersonating Falstaff should
take the liberty of indulging in a surreptitious grimace, the
fun is not apparent during the prince's speech, but it explodes
in the first word of the ensuing monolog by Falstaff : " Em-
bowell'd!"

The soliloquizer who is overheard may be the center of a

51 Simpson's School of Shakespeare, Vol. II, p. 418 ff.

tragic as well as of a comic situation. The king's monologic
account of himself in " The Third Part of Henry the Sixth "
(III, i) discloses his identity to the lurking keepers, who
seize him a prisoner; and a sentry and his company stealthily
listen to the dying words of Enobarbus ("Antony and Cleo
patra," IV, 9). In Dryden's adaptation of the tragedy, "All
for Love," he omits this overheard soliloquy, but he inserts two
equally prominent ones of his own.52

The romantic situation, like the tragic, takes advantage of
the device, for the purpose of imparting information to the
eavesdropper. In "All's Well," the Countess learns that her
son is the object of Helena's affection through the Steward's
report of Helena's soliloquy which he has overheard:
" Madam, I was very late more near her than I think she
wish'd me. Alone she was, and did communicate to herself
her own words to her own ears ; she thought, I dare vow for
her, they touch'd not any stranger sense. Her matter was, she
lov'd your son" (I, 3, 110-126). Here is a frank statement of
the convention which is used no less obviously but with a nicer
regard for romantic suspense in the balcony scene of " Romeo
and Juliet" (II, 2). There Romeo, listening to his love's
meditations, asks himself, " Shall I hear more, or shall I
speak at this ?"

The overheard soliloquy is rare in Sanskrit drama, but there
is one instance of it in a romantic setting. Vatsa in the
"Ratnavali" joyously anticipates meeting his sweetheart,53
and, while he is soliloquizing, Vasantaka enters with the lady,
and, overhearing him, observes to her, " Lady Sagarika, I hear
my friend muttering to himself his anxiety for your appear
ance." Roman comedy is replete with overheard soliloquies.
" Did you hear me ?" asks Megadorus in the " Aulularia " of
Plautus (III, 10) after indulging in a long monolog. " Every
thing from the very beginning," responds Euclio. Sometimes
the soliloquy is only partially overheard,54 and sometimes
merely the voice is heard.55

B2Furness Variorum Edition of Antony and Cleopatra, pp. 417, 447.
53 Select Specimens of the Hindu Drama, Vol. II, p. 296.
"Terence, pp. 30, 342, 216.
55 Plautus, Vol. I, pp. 195, 202, 417; Vol. II, p. 74.

A curious by-product of the overheard soliloquy in Roman
comedy, with survivals in France and Italy,56 is the feigned
soliloquy. The contrivance is both simple and ludicrous: A
is on the stage, B enters; A pretends to soliloquize about the
misfortunes of B, or on some other subject of vital interest
to B, who, notwithstanding his frantic efforts to learn the truth,
is ignored for some time by A. Shakespeare makes use of the
device denuded of its Roman eccentricities when Edmund of
" Lear " pretends to meditate on the eclipses for the benefit of
the approaching Edgar, who inquires, "How now, brother
Edmund! what serious contemplation are you in?" (I, 2, 150).

Such intricacies, however, are not favored by the English
drama. Indeed the overheard soliloquy does not gain its vogue
until the advent of foreign influence, although it exists inde
pendently in a crude form. For example, Mercy in the
morality " Mankind " concludes a hortative monolog with the
adjuration, " I besech you hertyly have this premedytacyone,"
whereupon Mischief enters, evidently overhearing the last
words, as he rejoins, " I besech you hertyly, leve yower cal-
culacyon!"57 "Damon and Pythias" (1564?) contains an
overheard soliloquy,58 for the first time boldly set forth after
the manner of Roman comedy. The device flourishes in Eng
lish pastoral drama — notably in Fletcher's " Faithful Shepherd
ess "59 — but it is conspicuously absent in the continental
models, Tasso's " Aminta " and Guarini's " Pastor Fido." For
more than three hundred years, the overheard soliloquy has
been occasionally utilized in English drama, but during the
past century, its popularity has been largely confined to melo
drama. In fact, one of the earliest representatives of the
melodrame in England, Holcroft's translation called "A Tale

56 Plautus, Vol. II, pp. 15, 262; Terence, pp. 47, 121; Moliere, L' Amour
Medecin, I, 6 ; Les Fourberies de Scapin, II, 7 ; Guarini's // Pastor Fido,
translated by Sir Richard Fanshawe, p. 98.

"Manly, Vol. I, p. 317. Cf. exactly parallel instances in Sidney Grundy,
cited by H. M. Paull, in " Dramatic Convention with Special Reference to
the Soliloquy," Fortnightly Review, May, 1899, p. 865.

58 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. IX, p. 34-

69 Mermaid edition, pp. 335, 351, 358, 398.

of Mystery "-(1802), contains a soliloquy overheard by the
lurking villain.60

The convention of the overheard soliloquy in England,
doubtless largely due to the example of Shakespeare, has
always been a simple affair: A is talking aloud and B over
hears what he says. In Roman and French comedy, the solilo
quy partially overheard or wholly pretended often distorts the
device beyond the semblance of reality. Yet Moliere, who
sometimes utilizes its most extreme forms, has a conception of
the soliloquy as a symbol of thought, and twice he seeks to
harmonize this idea with that of the overheard soliloquy. Har-
pagon ("L/Avare," I, 4), like Autolycus, fears that his
monolog has betrayed him, but, unlike the Shakespearean char
acter, he attempts to explain why he has been talking aloud:
"Je crois que j'ai parle haut en raissonant tout seul." In
"Scapin," Moliere again apologizes for the phenomenon.
While Argante is soliloquizing (I, 4), the eavesdropping Scapin
remarks in an apart, " II a deja apris 1'affaire, et elle lui tient
si fort en tete, que tout seul il en parle haut."

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Joanna Baillie
is confronted with the same dilemma : how can thought be over
heard? In her "Orra" (I, 2), she gives practically the same
solution as Moliere's. Cathrina interrupts the soliloquizer
with, " Ha, speakest thou to thyself ? "

"RUDOLF (starting). I did not speak.

CATHRINA. Thou didst ; thy busy mind gave sound to thoughts
Which thou didst utter with a quick, harsh voice,
Like one who speaks in sleep."

Shelley's apology in the mouth of Cenci only emphasizes the
incongruity of the paradox :

" I think they cannot hear me at that door ;
What if they should? And yet I need not speak,
Though the heart triumphs with itself in words.
O thou most silent air, that shalt not hear
What now I think ! " (I, i).

Shakespeare never allows the antithesis between thought and
speech to become evident in his overheard soliloquies, and con-

60 Published by R. Phillips, London, 1802, p. 42.

sequently he avoids the artistic blunders of the apologists. For
him the overheard soliloquy is always speech, and nowhere
does he show a finer appreciation of technical values than in
the balcony scene where Romeo and Juliet both frankly accept
the soliloquy as spoken. " She speaks ! " exclaims Romeo, " O
speak again, bright angel ! " and Juliet is not surprised that her
"counsel" has been overheard. The nearest approach to an
apology for the device in the works attributed to Shakespeare is
in the scene in "Titus Andronicus " (III, i) in which Lucius
remonstrates with Titus for having apostrophized the stones as
tribunes, and the afflicted man strives to justify the outbreak,
asserting that he prefers to address stones rather than tribunes.
Here, as usual, however, Shakespeare leaves no doubt that the
overheard soliloquy is speech. Indeed his use of the con
trivance is both consistent and effective. It is true that the
critic of today may be disturbed by the palpable artifice of the
climactic situation of " Love's Labor's Lost," or by the the
atrical manipulation of the death of, Enobarbus ; but even the
sophisticated modern must admit that the convention of the
overheard soliloquy in "Romeo and Juliet" adds an exquisite
touch to one of the most romantic episodes in drama, and that
in " Twelfth Night " it is the very foundation of one of the
merriest scenes in English comedy.

THE SOLILOQUY AS A CONVENTION OF STRUCTURE
In estimating the value of the Shakespearean soliloquy as a
structural device, it is manifestly unfair to apply modern
standards. The stage of today has eliminated the need of
the monologs treated in this and the preceding chapter. The
drop curtain and arrangements for ingress and egress on three
sides of the stage have removed the requirements of entrance
and exit speeches ; and the pause, occasionally with an empty
stage, has largely supplanted the link. Again, recent lighting
and scenic effects have made explanations of " business " less
necessary than formerly; and these improvements, together
with the picture-frame proscenium, have given an air of veri
similitude to the performance which renders absurd, as Pro-
8

fessor Brander Matthews61 has shown, the artifice of the over
heard soliloquy and the exposition monolog. All of these
devices are freely employed by Elizabethan dramatists and ac
cepted by their public without cavil, because their platform
stage makes possible an intimate relation between actors and
auditors and so naturally fosters the structural monolog as a
convention.

"The soliloquy is simply a convention of the theatric art,
the result of an implied contract between those before the cur
tain and those behind it."61 Owing to this tacit agreement be
tween playwright and public, the prolog and the initial soliloquy
are used as a means of exposition in the early drama of Greece,
India and China, as well as of modern nations. In classical
drama, the chorus and the messenger often perform the func
tion ; and in the plays of the classicists — notably of seventeenth
century France — the confidant furnishes an excuse for long
monologic narratives. The soliloquy has been a favorite
method of exposition in England until recently. Now that the
audience rejects this convention, the modern playwright, fol
lowing the technic of Ibsen, has skillfully revived the con
fidant, — not, however, the classicist companion whose sole duty
is listening. The new confidant, observes a writer in "The
Saturday Review,"62 "is endowed with a locus standi in the
form of a character and a real connection with the plot. . . .
To him are often confided things which in real life would be
confided to no one. The confiding of such things to him is an
offence against fundamental reality, whereas the confiding of
them through soliloquy is but an offence against reality of
surface. It should be easier, in such cases, to accept soliloquy
as a conventional substitute for silent thought than to accept
confidence as an actual substitute." This ingenious defence of
the exposition monolog is remarkable today when the device is
almost unanimously tabooed, and, as we have already noted, it
is unusual in the criticism of other periods. The position, how
ever, is not unique, as it has been emphatically maintained by
so astute a critic as M. Jules Lemaitre. " C'est une convention

l" Concerning the Soliloquy," Putnam's Monthly, Nov., 1906, p. 184.
62 Dec. 7, 1901, p. 710.

necessaire," he asserts. "II n'y a pas de meilleur moyen de
nous faire connaitre ce qu'un personage ne peut, avec vraisem-
blance, dire a d'autres."63

Criticism of the structural soliloquy has been almost ex
clusively confined to its most important form, the exposition
monolog, although the equally conspicuous but less frequent
overheard soliloquy has had its share of attention. D'Aubignac
condemns it, citing the authority of Scaliger;64 and, notwith
standing the explanations which poets have advanced in its
behalf, it has been subjected to disapproval and ridicule, when
ever discussed. It is remarkable, moreover, that these two
classes of structural soliloquies are the only ones, so far as I
know, which have received the critical recognition which is due
them. The monologic accompaniment of "business," the en
trance speech and the exit tag have been practically ignored,
while the link has been discussed only in foreign criticism,05
and the overheard soliloquy and the exposition monolog have
been reviewed, for the most part, on the question of their being
natural. " Neither soliloquy nor the use of verse can be con
demned on the mere ground that they are unnatural," Pro
fessor Bradley66 observes with acumen. "No dramatic lan
guage is natural; all dramatic language is idealized. So that
the question as to the soliloquy must be one as to the degree
of idealization and the balance of advantages and disad
vantages."

Clearly Shakespeare's vindication lies in the advantages of
the soliloquy as a factor in the technic of his time. He finds
the various manifestations of the convention, and he avails
himself of them, using with especial frequency the exposition
monolog, the link and the exit speech. He adds nothing to
their intricacy, but, only in exceptional cases, is he satisfied
with the obviously utilitarian soliloquy. Unconsciously, per
haps, but none the less effectually, he performs a dual service :
first, he borrows the device from his contemporaries and fits it

63 Impressions de Theatre, premiere serie, p. 306.

64 Whole Art of the Stage, p. 58.
86 See ante, p. 83.

88 Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 72.

100

into the framework of his piece ; and then he beautifies it with
his magic touch. "Now is the winter of our discontent,"
" Boy Lucius ! Fast asleep ? " " Words without thoughts never
to heaven go," — these are respectively exposition monolog, link
and exit speech, which, for distinction, music and feeling are
unparalleled outside of Shakespeare. Nevertheless, it must be
admitted that structural monologs are secondary in importance
to the great soliloquies of comedy and tragedy which constitute
the theme for the remainder of this investigation.

CHAPTER V

SHAKESPEARE'S USE OF THE COMIC MONOLOG
Like nearly every other part of Elizabethan drama, the comic
monolog is the product of both classical and native traditions,
which appear almost perfectly blended in the usage of Shake
speare. It seems a far cry from the narration of the Plautine
puppet, on the one hand, and the recitation of the medieval
buffoon, on the other, to the matchless soliloquies of Falstaff
and Benedick; but there are lines of development from those
divergent sources which culminate in Shakespeare's brilliant
creations. To be sure, the Shakespearean monolog is usually
inferior, in technic and spirit, to the famous meditations of
Benedick and Falstaff, but, as Dr. Johnson observes, " it is no
more to be required that wit should always be blazing, than
that the sun should always stand at noon." Indeed, the variety
of Shakespeare's comic soliloquies is one of their most in
teresting features ; but, nevertheless, they fall naturally into
groups, the basis of classification being the nature of the
speaker rather than the content of the speech.

There are seven conspicuous kinds of comic monologists in
Shakespeare: the clown, the drunkard, the fantastic, the
cuckold, the rogue, the braggart and the cynic. The few re
maining soliloquizers are distinct from the rest in their humor
ous efforts at serious meditation, and, since they have the intro
spective attitude in common, they may be styled analysts.
Many of these types, as their names suggest, have illustrious
predecessors, whom we shall note, while investigating in detail
Shakespeare's method and accomplishment.

THE CLOWN

The monolog of the clown has no precise analog in classic
comedy. The narrative of the Plautine servant usually dis
closes him more of a sharper than a buffoon. Perhaps he is
most akin to the Elizabethan clown in the long discourse of

101

102

Sosia which opens "Amphitryon." His rehearsal of the The-
ban victory, preliminary to announcing it to his mistress, is
given a touch of amusing realism by Moliere when he has the
mistress impersonated by Sosia's lantern. This device of rep
resenting people by inanimate objects is ludicrously carried out,
it will be remembered, in Launce's first monolog (" Two Gentle
men of Verona," II, 3, i, 35).

The important ancestor of the Shakespearean clown is doubt
less the strolling entertainer of medieval England, and, although
no direct relation can be shown to exist between his monolog
and that of the Roman mime,1 it is interesting to observe that
there probably was a remote historical prototype. " Origi
nally," says Mr. E. K. Chambers,2 "the mimes seem to have
performed in monologs, and the action of their pieces continued
to be dominated by a single personage." The form of enter
tainment sometimes designated as " Horatian comedy,"3 consist
ing of a story told in one or more monologs and illustrated by
characters in action, flourished during the twelfth century.
The "elegiac" and "epic" tragedies and comedies of the
period, often derived from Terence, were, according to Dr.
Cloetta,4 " intended for a half -dramatic declamation by min
strels." It is of interest that these monologic narratives often
contain direct quotations of dialog, — a device used with tragic
force in "Richard the Third,"5 and with comic -effect in the
monologs of Launce and Launcelot Gobbo.

In Italy the folk drama has its beginning in monolog, without
the customary preliminary step of song,6 while in France, dur
ing the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, there are two genres
of popular recitations, the sermon joyeux and the monologue.
The word " monolog," it may be observed in this connection,
probably originated in seventeenth century France.7 The

*P. S. Allen, "The Medieval Mimus," Modern Philology, Jan., 1910, Vol.
VII, No. 3, p. 329 ff.

2 Medieval Stage, Vol. I, p. 5.

3 Geschicte des Neueren Dramas, by W. Creizenach, Vol. I, p. 42.

Beitrage zur Litteratur," quoted by E. K. Chambers, Medieval Stage,
Vol. II, p. 213.

6 See ante, p. 64, and compare with p. 128 of this chapter.

6 Creizenach, Vol. I, p. 312.

T Creizenach, Vol. II, p. 287, note 2.

103

French monologue, inheriting some of the broadly farcical
traditions of the fabliau, consists of " a scene for one person,
in which the actor plays a true role ... a complete comedy
put in a limited framework."8 For mirth-provoking ingenuity,
some of these pieces — the celebrated "Franc-archer de Bag-
nolet," for example — compare favorably with the monolog of
the Shakespearean clown at his best. It was only a step to the
introduction of dialog,9 and the probabilities are, as M. Lin-
tilhac10 states them, that " there was emulation and very likely
filiation between the dramatic monologue and the farce" of
France.

It seems equally probable, although even more difficult to
prove, that the stroller of medieval England left his impress
on the comic monologs of subsequent drama. One may reason
ably conjecture that the minstrel included in his repertory the
kind of boisterous appeals to the crowd which survive in the
monologs of the Vice of miracles, moralities, interludes, and
early comedies and tragedies. In all of these species, the
monolog of the clown, usually known as the Vice, presents cer
tain well defined characteristics. He is a roisterer who bluster-
ingly accosts the audience and cracks some jokes for their
amusement. Indeed, the address to the audience is so in
timately associated with the comic monolog, particularly with
that of the clown, that it seems advisable to make a slight
digression at this juncture, in order to ascertain the historical
and technical relation of the phenomenon to the Shakespearean
soliloquy.

The parabasis of Aristophanes and the prolog of Plautus and
Terence are monologic addresses to the audience. In fact,
the so-called soliloquies of these masters, almost invariably con
versational in tone, tacitly imply the presence of hearers. On
rare occasions, Plautus has his monologist accost the spectators,
for the purpose of emphasizing the exposition. Thus Stephan-
ium, in "Stichus" (IV, 3), proclaims, "I wish it to appear

8 " Le monologue dramatique dans 1'ancien theatre Fran^ais," by fimile
Picot, Romania, Vol. XV, p. 358.
' Picot, Romania, Vol. XV, p. 361.
10 La comedie moyen age et rennaissance, p. 203.

104

wondrous to none of you, Spectators, why I who live there
(pointing) am come out hither from this other house: I'll
inform you thereon."11 Once, in the "Aulularia" (V, 2), he
makes a sensational use of the device, when Euclio, raging over
the loss of his treasure, cries, " I beseech you, give me your aid,
and point me out the person that has taken it away. What's
the matter ? Why do you laugh ? " He proceeds to interrogate
one of the spectators. Moliere, adapting this monolog in
"L'Avare" (IV, 7) does not dispense with the direct address.

Foreign adaptations in early English drama make conspicu
ous use of the device. " Calisto and Melibaea" (i5i6-33)>
from the Spanish through the Italian, contains many long
monologs rhetorical, expository and lamenting, but almost
always, even when serious, they are spoken directly to the
audience. Translations from the neo-Latin, such as "Ther-
sites" (1537 c.) and "The Disobedient Child" (1560 c.), have
monologs accosting the spectators directly and indirectly.
Likewise, the comedies built on classical models, such as
"Roister Doister" (1552 c.) and "Jack Juggler" (1553-8 c.),
freely avail themselves of the contrivance.

As we have observed, in all forms of early English drama,
the clownish monologist, generally appearing as the Vice,
salutes his auditors. Garcio, "a mery lad" of the Towneley
miracle on the killing of Abel, greets the spectators with an
"All hale!," adjures them to make no noise, informs them,
" Gedlyngis, I am a fulle grete wat," and departs with a " ffar-
well, for I am gone."12 In "Like Will to Like" (pr. 1568),
Nichol Newfangle presents the knave of clubs to a man in the
audience with the jovial remark, " Like unto like."13 Ambi
dexter, the Vice of " Cambises " (S. R. 1569-70), not only
gives a dissertation on his name,14 but he also has a number of
roistering monologs addressed directly to his hearers.15 On
one occasion, he pretends to single out a girl of the audience :

"Vol. I, p. 246. Cf. Vol. I, pp. 201, 282; Vol. II, pp. 214, 231.

12 Townley Plays, E. E. T. S., Extra Series, Vol. LXXI, p. 9.

18 The Dramatic Writings of Ulpian Fulwell, edited by J. S. Farmer, p. 4.

"Manly, Vol. II, p. 168.

15 Pp. 173, 189, 191.

105

"How say you, maid, to mary me wil ye be glad?"16 Such
methods for causing laughter are not unknown in modern
vaudeville.

From the examples cited, it is evident that there is a certain
distinction between the salutations of the monologists of Ro
man comedy and of early English drama. Plautus sometimes
addresses the spectators, for the purpose of elucidating or of
emphasizing the plot, while the English buffoon is wont to
greet his audience with no other purpose than that of jesting.
With the advent of classical influence, there are a few instances
of the direct address for the sake of imparting information.
For example, Mathew Merygreeke's simple statement :

" But now of Roister Doister somewhat to expresse,
That ye may esteeme him after his worthinesse ! " (I, i).

The frequent monologic narratives and commentaries of Die-
con, the " Bedlem " of " Gammer Gurton," have a distinctively
native tang, although in length and content they show clas
sical influence. Diccon's manner of addressing the audience
is a favorite one with subsequent clowns : " Ye see, masters,
that one end tapt of this my short devise ! " he observes (II, 3),
and again : " Now, sirs, do you no more, but kepe my coun-
saile juste" (III, 3). The Elizabethan clown always assumes
that he is addressing his hearers, and occasionally he signifies
the fact with a jovial vocative, such as " masters " or " sirs."

Clowns in the extant dramas of Shakespeare's immediate
predecessors are by no means numerous. Miles of Greene's
"Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay" (1598 c.) has two sprightly
monologs in which he calls the audience "sir" (sc. XI, XV).
Raffe's playful account of the astronomer's mishap, in Lyly's
"Gallathea" (pr. 1592) (V, i), is guiltless of vocatives,
although the story is obviously told to the auditors. The
nearest approach to a comic soliloquy in Marlowe is the speech
in "Doctor Faustus" (1588?) in which the Horse-Courser
explains to the spectators how he got wet (sc. XI). Typical
monologs of the clown, with a suggestion of the native fun of
Shakespeare, occur in " Mucedorus " (pr. 1598) 17 and in

18 P. 199.

17 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. VII, pp. 208, 234.

106

"Englishmen for my Money" (1598 c.) (Ill, i), both speak
ing to the bystanders collectively as " sirrah."

Although the diction of all of Shakespeare's clowns is con
versational, only Launce directly addresses the audience. He
uses the conventional "sir" (II, 3, 21), and he has a man
nerism of exclaiming, "Look you" (III, I, 261, 276; IV, 4,
2). He says to his auditors, " I'll show you the manner of it "
(II, 3, 15), and again he frankly assures them, "You shall
judge " (IV, 4, 18). Aside from these remarks, there are sur
prisingly few direct appeals to the audience in Shakespeare.
At rare intervals, Falstaff uses the second person,18 but unob
trusively. Thisbe's farewell to her friends in " A Midsummer-
Night's Dream" (V, I, 352) may be interpreted as referring
to the onlookers, but, if so, it is excusable as a burlesque of
such absurdities as the exhortation of the audience by the
dying Cambises.19

An indictment may be brought against Shakespeare's art,
however, in the case of Petruchio's soliloquy ("Taming of
the Shrew," IV, i, 191-214). The dramatist weakens the
speech by terminating it with a jocular appeal to the hearers,
a conclusion evidently tacked on, since it does not appear in
the original "A Shrew."20 This tag, almost epilogic, suggests
the analogy of the Elizabethan epilog, usually spoken by one
of the players directly to the audience.

" He that knows better how to tame a shrew,
Now let him speak ; 'tis charity to show,"

cries Petruchio as he leaves the stage.

The abrupt pointing of the moral of the action, quite pos
sibly the outgrowth of the tradition of the hortative monolog
of the morality, is by no means unusual in Elizabethan times.
Young Arthur of "How a Man May Choose a Good Wife
from a Bad " demands, " What husband here but would wish
such a wife?"21 There are many such admonitions to a class

18 The Second Part of Henry the Fourth, V, i, 93; The Merry Wives of
Windsor, III, 5, n.

19 See ante, p. 78.

20 See ante, p. 32.

21 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. IX, p. 87.

107

of the audience. Parolles has a word of warning for him
"who knows himself a braggart" ("All's Well," IV, 4, 370),
and Posthumus admonishes "you married ones" (" Cymbe-
line," V, i, 2). Likewise, Heywood's Mistress Frankford22
and Jane Shore23 both urge the women of the audience to
profit by their sad examples.

Specific adjurations of this nature almost imperceptibly
merge into apostrophes to the absent, and the two are not
always easily distinguished. For example, the speeches by
Parolles and Posthumus just mentioned might be considered
as generalizations independent of the audience. Again, Othello's
"Look, where she comes" (III, 3, 277) and similarly pre
pared entrances24 lost their significance before Shakespeare
used them, although perhaps they were originally intended
for the spectators.

It may appear that undue attention has been given the address
to the audience, since, manifestly, the soliloquy, which is a
speaking alone, cannot be spoken to others. However, it must
be borne in mind that the comic soliloquy evolves from the
buffoon's monologic greeting to the spectators, modified by the
discursive narrative soliloquy of classical comedy, itself not
free from the direct address. Shakespeare's usage exhibits
the transition of the monolog from the funny story told the
audience to the laughable revelation of the soliloquizer's in
most thoughts and emotions. Professors Kilian, Bradley and
Johnson agree that Shakespeare's soliloquies " are in some
cases too evidently addressed to the audience, thus putting the
player in an inartistic relation to them and taking him out of
the character for the moment."25 The fact is incontestable,
but the wonder is that there are so few instances. Petruchio
and Falstaff are mild offenders, while the clown Launce is the
only Shakespearean monologist who conspicuously uses the
direct address.

Whether the monolog of the Shakespearean clown takes the

K A Woman Killed with Kindness, IV, 6.

a King Edward IV, Part II, IV, 3.

M See ante, p. 55.

K Shakespeare and his Critics, by C. F. Johnson, p. 376.

108

form of narration, characterization, lamentation or philosophiz
ing, it shows the dual heritage of classicism and medievalism.
Launce's stories have something of the classic in being lengthy
narratives, but in theme they are as racy and indigenous as
folk tale or fabliau. Like nearly all other comic monologs,
Launce's are complete in themselves and practically indepen
dent of the rest of the performance. His account of the part
ing (II, 3, 1-35) is as ludicrously dramatic as the French
monologue at its best. The fun arises not only from the
absurdity of the "business," but also from the preliminary
casting of parts. Dr. Johnson, commenting on Sir Thomas
Hamme's emendation for the sake of rationalizing the tangle
beginning, " I am the dog," pertinently observes, " This cer
tainly is more reasonable, but I know not how much reason
the author intended to bestow on Launce's soliloquy." Launce's
anecdotes concerning his dog (IV, 4, 1-42) doubtless made a
strong appeal to the Elizabethan audience because of their
vulgarity, but the taste of all ages must succumb to the droll
humor resulting from the master's unrequited devotion to
his cur.

In the class of clownish narration may be included Bottom's
disjointed account of his dream ("A Midsummer-Night's
Dream," IV, i, 203-224), the fun springing from the incom
pleteness of the discourse. " Methought I was, — and methought
I had, — '"'Bottom's reticence is in itself an inducement to
laughter, as the audience can readily supply the omissions.
The absurdity of the monolog is enhanced by the incorrect com
bination of subject and predicate — "the eye of man hath not
heard," and so forth — a trick used elsewhere in the piece for
ludicrous effect (III, i, 93; V, i, 194).

Analyzing the fun of Shakespeare's soliloquies may seem
very much like breaking the traditional butterfly upon the
wheel, but, if not pushed to an extreme, the laboratory method
is perhaps the most satisfactory test of the playwright's tech-
nic. In the matter of clownish characterization, the results
are chiefly negligible. To be sure, Costard's bits of portraiture
in fantastic phraseology ("Love's Labor's Lost," IV, i, 142,
151) have an element of humor in the speaker's assumed supe-

109

riority, as well as in his linguistic foppishness. Launce's
monolog on his sweetheart (III, i, 261-278) is somewhat
funny because of his negative manner of divulging his love and
his lack of characterization in the items describing the lady.
On the other hand, the cataloging of the striking qualities of
Bardolph, Pistol and Nym by the Boy in " Henry the Fifth "
(III, 2, 28-57), and his further comment on Pistol in con
trast with the other two worthies (IV, 5, 70-82) are difficult
to construe as amusing, except in the fact that the remarks are
made by a precocious small boy. The lad is not a clown, but
his monologs fall in line with other clownish characterizations,
such as the list of prisoners given by Pompey, the clown of
"Measure for Measure" (IV, 3, 1-21), another supposedly
humorous speech. The most ludicrous delineation of character
in Shakespearean soliloquy is FalstafFs inimitable description
of Justice Shallow (" The Second Part of Henry the Fourth,"
III, 2, 323-357) ; but Falstaff is far from being a clown, and
all of his soliloquies will presently be treated together as a study
of his personality. Again, Launcelot Gobbo's ruminations
("The Merchant of Venice," II, 2, 1-33) are unquestionably
those of a clown, but they are reserved for consideration in
connection with the subject of comic introspection.

The clownish monologists have many subjects for their re
marks. Costard philosophizes on the magic word " remunera
tion" (III, i, 136-144). The servant Grumio of "The Tam
ing of the Shrew" laments the annoyances of his lot (IV, i,
i-i i ) . This is a conventional theme for the soliloquizing ser
vants of Roman comedy, and a similar instance occurs in the
" Sakuntala "of Kalidasa, when Mathavya, the emperor's buf
foon, complains of the life of the hunter which has been forced
upon him. In " Romeo and Juliet," the clown-servant makes
an elaborate statement of his inability to read (I, 2, 38-45),
creating amusement in Bottom's style by the wrong collocation
of words. Trinculo's droll attempt to classify Caliban (II,
2,17-43) is capped with the memorable saw, "Misery acquaints
a man with strange bedfellows." The doggerel "prophecy"
of the Fool in "Lear" (III, 28, 79-95) is awkwardly intro-

110

duced and nonsensically terminated, and, indeed, has no excuse
for being. It is unquestionably spurious.26

To complete the miscellaneous collection of monologs by
Shakespearean clowns, one more should be added, a little corn*
ment by Mistress Quickly in "The Merry Wives" (III, 4,
105-115). Mistress Quickly is really a she-clown, and her
soliloquy is funny chiefly because of her guileless duplicity:
she swears to do everything in her power for all three suitors, —
" for so I have promised, and I'll be as good as my word." It
is not surprising to find in Mistress Quickly's monolog a mala-
propism — " speciously " for " especially," — since she is addicted
to this form of discourse ; but it is noteworthy that the device
is often employed by Shakespeare. Costard's "obscenely"
(IV, i, 145) is intentionally misapplied, while other instances
are afforded by Launce's "prodigious son" (II, 3, 4) and
Launcelot Gobbo's "devil incarnation" (II, 2, 28).

But the verbal confusion of the Shakespearean clown, as a
factor for producing mirth, is subordinate to his psychological
confusion. Trinculo's fear of the storm, together with his per
plexity as to the classification of the fish-like monster, Launce
lot Gobbo's uncertainty as to whether to budge or no, and
Bottom's amazement at his dream, — these states of mind are
essentially comic. Previously, the buffoon had created amuse
ment by his bluster, word-play, jingles or the recounting of an
anecdote, but his speech had scarcely a trace of individuality:
he was merely a clown. Shakepeare, retaining the clown as a
stock figure, adds a vitalizing touch of human nature. Launce
is an illustration. Not only is fresh ingenuity given to the con
ventional story-teller, but further he is endowed with a ruling
passion, his devotion to his dog. Thus the monologs of Launce,
although farcical, are infused with the spirit of comedy.

THE DRUNKARD

Allied with the broadly farcical effect of the clown's monolog
is that of the drunkard. Indeed, clowns and drunkards in real
life are wont to mutter incoherently to themselves, and hence
there is an exceptional degree of verisimilitude in their stage

28 A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy, p. 452.

Ill

soliloquies. From Plautus and Terence to the so-called musi
cal comedies of our day, the drunken monologist has been a
favorite with the groundlings. The intoxicated Pseudolus, in
the play by Plautus of that name (V, i), gives a lengthy
account of the wanton feast he has been enjoying, and he
introduces a dance, saying that wine has laid hold of his feet.
Chremes, in the "Eunuchus" of Terence (IV, 6), also admits
that wine is too much for his feet.

Shakespeare's Stephano proclaims his intoxication by re
course to the bottle, as he observes, " Here's my comfort "
("The Tempest," II, 2, 47, 57). By way of a specialty, he
enters singing a " scurvy tune." His surprise upon discover
ing the four-legged monster is tempered by the wine which
warms him, and accordingly his emotions are sufficiently dif
ferentiated from those of Trinculo, whose monolog immediately
precedes. It is perhaps worthy of note that " Trinculo drunk,
but something recovered " is assigned a vulgar monolog in
"Albumazar" (V, 8), a play which was acted in 1614. There
is nothing Shakespearean about the speech, except the name
and condition of the speaker, but these items seems to attest a
certain popularity of the episode in " The Tempest."

No such enduring notoriety has attached to the trifling inter
lude by Stephano, however, as has been lavished upon the
monolog of the Porter in " Macbeth " (II, 3, 1-23). Stephano's
song and remarks, like the dance and talk of Pseudolus, merely
constitute amusement for a moment, with no ulterior signifi
cance: but the Porter's speechjnterrupts a scene of tenseu
^agedy. Herein lies its fame^Jts opprobrium and its power.
The position of the monolog is its important feature. The
murder is committed, and straightway the knocking begins.
The moment of keen suspense is prolonged and augmented to
the point of hysteria by the appearance and maunderings of
the drunkard. His words, almost drowned by the hubbub at
the gate, are of minor consequence. It is his dramaturgic duty
to accentuate the theatrical effect of the knocking. Eleven
times he uses the word " knock " ; what does the knocking ,/'
mean? DeQuincey has well depicted its sinister and porten-

112

tous fascination, while Joseph Jefferson27 has emphasized its
dramaturgic significance.

" Comic_relief " is the popular catch-word interpretation of
the Porter's speech ; perhaps " comic intensification " would be
slightly more suggestive of its Junction. The observations of
the drowsy drunkard, imagining himself the porter of hell-
gate, and welcoming in his maudlin fancy the farmer, the
Jesuit equivocator and the tailor, with accompanying local hits, —
these are boisterously farcical in themselves; and, because of
this fact, they serve to intensify the lurid tragedy of the situa
tion. No one understands better than Shakespeare the dra
matic value of the quick emotional shift. Like the grave-
digger's scene of "Hamlet," the Porter's monolog is a gro
tesque contrast, nevertheless harmonizing with the tragic theme.
This Porter of hell-gate is in reality the door-keeper of a castle
which has just been rendered a hell by the perpetration of a
hideous crime, and the criminals have started on " the primrose
way to the everlasting bonfire." Whether this symbolism is
coincidental or intentional, it is impossible to ascertain, but it
has not entirely escaped the critics.

Criticism of the passage ranges from condemnation to lauda
tion. A glance at some of the most notable commentaries col
lected in the Furness Variorum edition (pp. 109-110) shows
the variety of opinion. Capell puts the scene on a utilitarian
basis, stating that its purpose is to allow time for Macbeth^ to
wash his hands and change his dress. Coleridge, excepting
only a slight touch, and the Clarendon editors, in toto, pro
nounce the episode spurious. Scholarly opinion to-day, how
ever, with comparative unanimity, reverses the decision. Heraud
styles the scene an admirable transition, while Clarke voices
the consensus of modern thought: "Its repulsively coarse
humor serves powerfully to contrast, yet harmonize, with the
crime that has been perpetrated."

THE FANTASTIC

Unlike the drunkard and the clown, the fantastic lover is a
sporadic growth. He is the product of humanism in some of

27 Autobiography, p. 187.

113

its eccentric social and literary aspects, such as the cults of
Ciceronian eloquence and Platonic gallantry. Lovers have
soliloquized in the literature of all peoples and ages, but never
with the rhetorical fervor of the renaissance sonnet, novella
and pastoral comedy. In the England of the second half of
the sixteenth century, the flourishing of the Petrarchistic
sonnet and the Italian novella fostered the extravagantly
romantic soliloquy, and the vogue of Euphuism gave it its
phraseology. The early plays of Lyly abound in extravagant
and Euphuistic soliloquies of lovers. For example, Phao's
lament in " Sapho and Phao" (II, 4) expresses by aid of
Euphuistis similes, ecstatic revery on love and the beloved,
but there is no hint that the soliloquizer is conscious that he is
fantastic. Accordingly, although a spirit of playfulness per
vades his diction, his soliloquy must be classed as romantic
rather than comic.

Not so the f antasts of " Love's Labors Lost " : they rejoice in
their whimsicality, making a jest of seriousness, and, more
over, their soliloquies sound a note of sincerity absent in Lyly.
Don Armado's outburst (I, 2, 172-191) is heated, grandilo
quent and playful, his word-play including technical terms of
self-defense, as well as classical and Biblical allusions. The
mock heroic apostrophes of his peroration, "Adieu, valor!
rust, rapier! be still, drum! for your manager is in love; yea,
he loveth," — are paralleled in the soliloquy of Frank conclud
ing the first act of "The Fair Maid of the Exchange" (pr.
1607): "Therefore, hat-band, avaunt! ruff, regard yourself!
garters, adieu ! shoe-string — so and so ! I am a poor enamorate
and enforced with the poet to say, love overcomes all, and I
that love obey." The early part of Frank's soliloquy, in which
he inventories his lady's defects as well as her points of
beauty, is not dissimilar to the lament of Biron (III, I, 175-
207), who whimsically rails not only against Dan Cupid and
woman but also the beauty of his mistress,

" A whitely wanton with a velvet brow,
With two pitch-balls stuck in her face for eyes."

As Biron's speech verges on a parody of the conventional
soliloquy, so Petruchio's soliloquies are comically analogous to

114

those of the plotting villain. Before he meets his Kate, he
carefully plots his conversation with her (II, I, 169-182).

" Say that she rail, why then I'll tell her plain
She sings as sweetly as a nightingale," —

thus he begins to lay his plans. When he has his victim in his
power, with villainous glee he exults over the tortures he has
inflicted on her, and he plots future deviltry 'for the accom
plishment of his design (IV, i, 191-214). Were it not for
the underlying spirit of farcical exaggeration, these ponderings
would appear as diabolical as those of lago.

It is only a step from the fantastic villain and the fantastic
lover to the ancient and honorable realm of mock heroics.
Aristophanes opens his " Ecclesiazusae " with a burlesque solil
oquy by Praxagora, who, in mock Euripidean style, apos
trophizes the " bright eye of the wheel- formed lamp " hanging
over her door. Almost as conspicuous a travesty is the lengthy
lamentation of Chrysalus in the " Bacchides " of Plautus (IV,
9). After stating his wish to lament, the soliloquizer proceeds
to draw absurdly literal comparisons between his plight and the
fall of Troy. Nearly every age has its famous burlesque solil
oquy. " I die, fly, fly, my soul, to Grocer's Hall !" wails Ralph
at the close of " The Knight of the Burning Pestle " (pr. 1613).
Cries the protagonist of Scarron's " Jodelet" (1645) :

" Soyez nettes, mes dents, 1'honneur vous le commande,
Perdre les dents est tout le mal que j'apprehende " (IV, 2).

"O Tilburina!" sobs the Governor of Sheridan's "Critic"
(I779)> " from thy aged father's beard, thou plucked the few
brown hairs which time had left" (III, i).

From Aristophanes to Sheridan, the apostrophe is a favorite
device of the burlesque soliloquy, but nowhere as in Shake
speare is its absurdity so effectively enhanced by frequent
repetition. The soliloquies of the play within the play of " A
Midsummer-Night's Dream " depend largely on this rhetorical
trick. Five times Pyramus invokes the night and five times the
wall (V, i, 170-182), and Thisbe continues the salutations to
the wall (11. 190-193). The burlesque by Pyramus of the con-

115

ventional apostrophe to the dead includes apostrophes to the
moon and to the fates and furies, as well as to the deceased
sweetheart (11. 276-292). The soliloquy continues, a parody of
the suicide speech (11. 296-312), with apostrophes to tears,
sword, tongue and moon. Again, with an invocation of the
dead hero, sisters three, lovers and friends, tongue and sword,
Thisbe quits this bustling scene (11. 331-354) for all eternity.

Shakespeare's immediate predecessors afford him ample
opportunity for parody. Farmer cites parallels in "Dampn
and Pythias," and Wright in " Appius and Virginia,"28 for
grandiose references to the furies and the fateful sisters, while
it is unnecessary to go farther than Golding's " Ovid "29 for the
apostrophe to the wall, and others equally inflated. A series
of apostrophes introduced by " O " — the mannerism which
Shakespeare here renders so ludicrous — is a contrivance often
used by the Elizabethan dramatist for the purpose of elicting
pity and terror. Indeed, in "Romeo and Juliet" (IV, 5, 49-
54), Shakespeare seems guilty of the same affectation, but he
may be exonerated on the grounds that the lamentations of
the Nurse and her companions, which have no literal signi
ficance for the audience, are serio-comic rather than tragic.

But it is no mere rhetorical trick which places Pyramus and
Thisbe, mock hero and heroine, in the forefront of fantastic
and burlesque figures. Each reveals his amorous condition
by a maudlin admiration for the objects of nature, each
exhausts the stage vocabulary of the bereaved lover, and each,
with an exaggeration of the requirements of the suicide solil
oquy,30 doubly redoubles the announcement of the stabbing and
of the expiration :

" Thus die I, thus, thus, thus,
Now am I dead,
Now am I fled ;
My soul is in the sky.

Tongue, lose thy light;
Moon, take thy flight.
Now die, die, die, die, die."

28 Furness Variorum Edition, p. 229, note.

29 See ante, p. 37.

30 See ante, pp. 79—81.

116

Pyramus and Thisbe are by no means caricatures of Romeo
and Juliet. Rather, they epitomize theatrical rant and senti
mentality in a manner irresistibly appealing to the risibles, and,
in addition, their staccato meter and neat rimes tickle the audi
tory sense. Even while laughing uproariously, one may con
sistently pause to observe, " This is the silliest stuff that ever
I heard."

THE CUCKOLD

The worried husband, a perennial subject for jest in medi
eval fabliaux, becomes a conspicuous butt in the sermons
joyeux and the monologues of fifteenth and sixteenth century
France. In these entertainments, M. Lintilhac notes, " les
fiances et maris plus ou moins anxieux, et pour cause " consti
tute one of the three important types of characters — types, he
observes, which reappear in French farce.31

The worried husband also occurs in early English farce, and
his soliloquies are sometimes a feature of the performance.
Thus Johan's long monolog beginning Heywood's " mery play
betwene Johan Johan the husbande, Tyb his wyfe, and Syr
Jhan the preest" (pr. 1533) is a broadly humorous ponder
ing on his determination to beat his wife, "that she shall
repent to go a catterwawlyng." Likewise, near the opening of
the piece called "Tom Tyler and his Wife" (1578 c.), the
hero gives an account of his marital infelicity. Chapman's
"All Fools" (1599 c.) contains the ruminations of a man who
prides himself on mistrusting his wife (II, i).

It is not until the end of the sixteenth century that the solil
oquy of the cuckold becomes conventionalized. The term
"cuckold" is used advisedly, not to indicate the man's afflic
tion, as his troubles are often imaginary, but because the word
occurs again and again in his monologs, together with some
ill-natured allusion to the horns on his forehead, the traditional
emblem of his suffering. Until the closing of the theatres, this
absurd soliloquy flourishes, and it occasionally reappears in
Restoration comedy, which is surcharged with the theme of
cuckoldry. It is difficult for the modern critic to find any mirth
in the indecent motif, or to comprehend the prolonged popu-

31 La Comedie Moyen Age et Renaissance, p. 203.

117

larity of the soliloquy, which gains in successive treatment
neither novelty nor variety.

Shakespeare's use of the device is no better and no worse
than that of his contemporaries and successors, albeit there
is considerable animation in Ford's jealous ragings. " Cuck
old! Wittol! Cuckold! The devil himself hath not such a
name," he storms, and he ends the soliloquy by thrice repeat
ing the opprobrious epithet (II, 2, 300-329). Again he ex
citedly determines on vengeance, concluding with the inevitable
reference to his horns (III, 5, 141-155).

THE ROGUE

A monologist vastly more pleasing to modern taste is the
rogue Autolycus. Although an individual creation, he, too,
belongs to a general type. The rogue of Plautus " can gleek
upon occasion." Chrysalus of the " Bacchides " (IV, 4)
moralizes in this fashion : " No one can be a person well to do,
— unless he understands both how to do good and how to do
evil. With rogues he must be a rogue; with thieves let him
filch whatever he can." Pseudolus, another servant-rogue,
philosophizes cynically on the success of his wiles and strata
gems (II, 3). The parasite of Roman comedy is a somewhat
different kind of rogue, whose monologs reveal a pride in his
profession.

The soliloquies of Autolycus may be remotely dependent
upon classical tradition, tinged with the flamboyant spirit of
the English Vice; yet from the moment the Shakespearean
rogue enters with a gay song on his lips ("The Winter's
Tale," IV, 3, 1-22) to his departure as he exults in the kindli
ness of Fortune (IV, 4, 861-873), his exuberant personality
seems quite independent of tradition. " My traffic is sheets :"
with naive frankness he announces to the audience his name
and occupation (IV, 3, 23-32). "Ha, ha! what a fool
Honesty is !" he laughs, but moralizing is foreign to his mood,
and he gleefully proceeds to recount the successful prosecu
tion of his trade (IV, 4, 605-630). With the zeal of a special
ist, he is engrossed in his vocation, and, when left alone for a
moment, he cannot forbear a word as to the manifold requisites

118

of the cut-purse (IV, 4, 683-687). "This is the time that the
unjust man doth thrive," he exclaims rejoicing; " sure the gods
do this year connive at us, and we may do anything extem
pore " (IV, 4, 687-692). Again he gives vent to the same con
viction: "If I had a mind to be honest, I see Fortune would
not suffer me" (IV, 4, 861-862). Hoping to help his royal
master as well as himself, this prince of rogues boasts, "Let
him call me rogue for being so far officious: for I am proof
against that title and what shame else belongs to't" (IV, 4,

869-871).

Autolycus is entitled to a prominent place in the rogue's
gallery of literature, chiefly because of the monologs which
deftly indicate his care-free disposition. Comprehending and
transcending the petty details of his traffic, his abundant de
light in his knavery expresses itself in a genial trust in the
unknown forces guiding his destiny. The fact that we may
introduce a theological conception in our discussion of this
theatrical rascal shows how far he is removed from the clowns
of Shakespeare's early period. In his soliloquies, Autolycus
reveals himself, saving your reverence, something of a picares
que evangelist.

THE BRAGGART

The braggart is another type with antecedents in Roman
comedy, but the miles gloriosus does not attain distinction as a
monologist until the fifteenth century. From then on, the
soldat fanfaron is a conspicuous monologist in France,32 a
genre which includes the celebrated " Franc-archer de Bag-
nolet" (14680.).

In England, John Skelton's morality, " Magnificence," of the
early sixteenth century, contains a lengthy monolog in which
Magnificence compares himself with a catalog of the great,
including Alexander, Charlemagne, Arthur and a host of
others ;33 but it is " Thersites," translated from neo-Latin about
1537, which exalts the monolog of the boaster. The protagonist
has six long speeches, addressed to the audience, occasionally

'• " Le monologue dramatique dans 1'ancien theatre francais," by fimile
Picot, Romania, Vol. XVI, pp. 518-533.

33 Poetical Works, edited by Alexander Dyce, Vol. I, p. 273.

119

indulging in a coarse jest for their benefit, but animated
by the omnipresent theme, self-glorification. Again, in
" Soliman and Perseda" (S. R. 1592), the vain-glorious
knight Basilisco indulges in several soliloquies disclosing his
ruling passion.

Beside the extravagant declaration of valor made by Ther-
sites and Basilisco, the little speech of Parolles in "All's
Well" (II, 3, 249-256) seems puny and insignificant. A more
fitting comparison is afforded by the opening of "Johan
Johan," to which reference has already been made. Johan
asserts and reasserts his intention to beat his wife, but when
that lady appears with the query, "Why, whom wylt thou
beate, I say, thou knave?" his determination quickly vanishes.
The same situation occurs in " All's Well." " I'll beat him,"
declares the soliloquizing Parolles, "by my life, if I can meet
him with any convenience, an he were double and double a
lord. I'll have no more pity of his age than I would have of —
I'll beat, him, an if I could but meet him again." Thereupon
the object of his wrath enters, and the courage of the braggart
oozes away. In a later soliloquy he fully admits his cowardice :
" I find my tongue is too fool-hardy ; but my heart hath the
fear of Mars before it and of his creatures, not daring the
reports of my tongue " (IV, I, 31-34).

In connection with the soliloquizer who is amusing because
of his cowardice, Falstaff might be considered, and we shall
presently contrast his famous observations on honor with
those of many a stage braggart, showing the gulf separating the
Skakespearean creation from the stock figure.

THE CYNIC

But first let us turn our attention to another comic mono-
logist, the cynic. He can scarcely be termed a stock figure,
for the degree of his cynicism and his mode of expression are
variable quantities. Cynical monologs are frequent in Roman
comedy, often the utterance of the parasite, — but they are
sporadic rather than classifiable. Peniculus, opening the
" Menaechmi " of Plautus, whimsically moralizes on the power
of food, while Charinus, in the " Andria" of Terence (IV, i),

120

states his conviction as to the irresponsibility of a class of men
in regard to promises and fulfilment.

The parasite of "Damon and Pythias" (c. 1563) gives vent
to some sarcastic moralizing34 and comment.35 The philoso
phizing of the late moralities occasionally acquires an equally
pessimistic tone, — for example, Liberality's observations on the
injustices of life, in "The Contention between Liberality and
Prodigality" (c. 1600). 36 In a more bitterly ironical vein, old
Knowell of Jonson's "Every Man in His Humor" (c. 1598)
(II, 3) comments on the degeneracy of the times, while
Marston, Chapman, Middleton and their followers afford many
another illustration of cynical soliloquizing. Indeed, with the
lowering of the ethical standards of the stage, cynicism
increases. Before the closing of the theatres, the frailty of
woman is a favorite theme for the comic monolog, one which
grows in popularity and pruriency in the hands of Dry den
and his fellows. A foretaste of such pseudo-moralizing on
sex is found in the misanthropic observations of the Shepherd
of "The Winter's Tale" (III, 3, 59-79)-

The notable Shakespearean cynic is Thersites of "Troilus
and Cressida," although " cynic " seems almost too mild an
epithet to apply to this snarling railer, foul-mouthed and
bitter. His monologs form a succession of vehement denun
ciations of his companions. "Lost in the labyrinth of his
fury," he rails at Ajax and Achilles, invoking Jupiter and
Mercury in a sardonic prayer (II, 3, 1-23). In a vulgar exit
speech, he again pays his compliments to Achilles (III, 3, 313—
316). Next he rails against Menelaus with splenetic zeal,
incidentally paying his respects to Agamemnon, Achilles and
Patroclus (V, i, 53-73). Diomedes then becomes the sport of
his wrath (V, I, 95-106). "I will no more trust him when
he leers than I will a serpent when he hisses :" the downright
and violent assertion of his dislike has a touch of the humor of
Hotspur's anger. Particularly is the similarity felt in the grim
indirection of the jesting of Thersites: "He will spend his

34 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. IV, pp. 23, 32.

38 U. s., p. 41.

36 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. VIII, p. 343-

121

mouth, and promise, like Brabbler the hound ; but when he per
forms, astronomers foretell it." The final soliloquy consti
tutes a climactic burst of invective against Diomedes, Troilus,
Cressida, " that stale old mouse-eaten dry cheese, Nestor, and
that same dog-fox, Ulysses," "that mongrel-cur, Ajax," and
" that dog of as bad a kind, Achilles." The railings of Ther-
sites are unparalleled in the history of the soliloquy. Because
of their mood, they are most nearly akin to other cynical mono-
logs ; but their trenchancy, extravagance and truculence render
them unique. Doubtless they were very amusing to the audi
ence of their time, but to-day their comic effect is blurred by
their scurrility.

THE ANALYSTS

The meditations of Faulconbridge in " King John " are
tinged with cynicism, but the comic spirit animating them
seems more closely related to the soliloquies of Falstaff,
Benedick and Malvolio than to the railings of Thersites.
Manifestly, however, it would be difficult to conceive of tem
perament and ideas differing more widely than those of Fal
staff, Benedick and Faulconbridge. What is the trait uniting
these soliloquizers? They analyze the subject under considera
tion. Not attempting the introspective depths of Hamlet, they
nevertheless ponder and philosophize.37 The clown, the drunk
ard, the fantastic, the cuckold, the rogue and the braggart
have monologs more or less stereotyped, so far as thought is
concerned, while the railings of the cynic are equally wanting
in profundity; but the analytical quality distinguishes and
unites the greatest comic soliloquies of Shakespeare. More
over, it is this very element which is the source of the fun,
producing, to borrow the late Mr. Meredith's phrase, " thought
ful laughter."

FAULCONBRIDGE

" New-made honor doth forget men's names :" this is the
kind of thesis which incites the caustic dissertations of Faul-
conbridge's first soliloquy (I, I, 182-219). His biting com-

37 The famous ruminations of Jaques (As You Like It, II, 7, 12-34, i39~
166) are presented as parts of conversations, and accordingly they cannot
be regarded as soliloquies.

122

mentary on the small talk of "worshipful society" has a
theme not dissimilar to the complaint of the parasite Gelasimus
in the "Stichus" of Plautus (II, i), but the satiric shafts of
Gelasimus are aimed at one aspect of the emptiness of polite
conversation, the invitation to dinner. Faulconbridge's parody
of lordly table talk, however, is thoroughly English in its
humor. Although totally dissimilar in subject matter, it re
minds one of the soliloquies of the shepherds opening the
Towneley miracle, " Secunda Pastorum." The ponderings of
the three shepherds, saturated with pessimism, seem buoyed up
by an undercurrent of good nature. Likewise, the debonair
merriment of Faulconbridge, while it does not dull the edge of
the satire, gives the speech a genial tone characteristically
British. True, his soliloquy is not analytical in a scientific
sense, but its ludicrous exposure of social foibles shows a keen
and searching observation.

"In his first soliloquy he looks jestingly upon his new
dignity," remarks Dr. Gervinus ;38 " his merriment is changed
to bitter irony in the second soliloquy (II, I, 561-598) after
the sad experience of the French breach of faith with Con
stance." Here " commodity," in the sense of " profit " or
"advantage," is the object of his ire:

" That smooth-faced gentleman, tickling Commodity,
Commodity, the bias of the world."

He is not content, like Thersites, to vent his spleen in oppro-
brius epithets, but he weighs and dissects the significance
of the word, finally giving up the problem, with the ironical
conclusion :

" Well, whiles I am a beggar, I will rail
And say there is no sin but to be rich;
And being rich, my virtue then shall be
To say there is no vice but beggary."

The whole soliloquy is a masterly revelation of the workings
of the speaker's mind, and, harassed though he is, an important
indication of his acumen. Fascinating throughout the drama,
his sturdy personality seems more intimately disclosed in

88 Shakespeare Commentaries, translated by F. E. Bunnett, p. 367.

123

monolog than in dialog — an indubitable fact in the case of
Falstaff, whose soliloquies emphatically set forth his ideas and
feelings without the intervening veil of irony.

FALSTAFF

As Faulconbridge may be regarded as an outgrowth of the
cynic, so Falstaff appears to be the outgrowth of the cowardly
braggart. His series of soliloquies on honor, among the most
celebrated in the history of comedy, have some interesting
forerunners and successors. Following a murder in " Soliman
and Perseda," the vain-glorious knight Basilisco ruminates
fearfully on death, and decides to run away.39 Again, Nobbs
in "Jack Straw," while pondering on the fate of the rebels,
touches the honor theme:

" Tis dishonor for such as they to die in their bed,
And credit to caper under the gallows, all save the head."40

Cowardice is often the motif of the comic monolog. Ambi
dexter of " Cambises," for example, explains his running
away from the fight on the grounds of prudence : " It is wis-
dome, quoth I, by the masse, to save one!"41

At best, however, these are feeble preludes to FalstafFs
disquisition, but after it occurs, its matter and manner often
re-appear. The protagonist of Dekker's "Old Fortunatus"
(pr. 1600) uses the catechism method peculiar to FalstarFs
logic, care being the theme instead of honor. " Where dwells
Care? In princes' courts? No. Among fair ladies?
Neither, — " and so the eliminative process continues (I, i).
In "A King and No King" (1611) by Beaumont and Fletcher,
there is a series of three soliloquies (III, 2) by Bessus which
are somewhat reminiscent of Falstaff. Bessus confesses that
his reputation for military prowess was occasioned by his run
ning away. " If I might stand still in cannon-proof," he asserts
with Falstaffian humor, " and have fame fall upon me, I would
refuse it."

The comic monolog on honor occurs rather frequently in

39 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. V, p. 363.

40 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. V, p. 383.
"Manly, Vol. II, p. 173.

124

the continental drama of the seventeenth century, possibly a
reflex of the serious soliloquy on the same subject which
flourishes in Calderon. Calderon is fond of the comic coward.
In his " Puente de Mantible," Guarin, a trickster and boaster
as well as a cowardly soldier, announces in monolog (I, 3) that
he has forged his name on an officer's papers in order to gain
his military rank. The gracioso of " La Hija del Aire " is a
coward who has a soliloquy on honor, beginning, " Now we are
alone, honor" (I, n) ; and Brito of "El Principe Constante"
reveals his fear in a brief monolog (I, 14) during which he lies
on the ground, shamming death. Scarron's Jodelet, solilo
quizing, concludes with FalstafFs point of view, "qu'etre
homme d'honneur est une sotte chose " (" Le Jodelet Duelliste,"
III, i). Moliere's soliloquy on honor in " Sganarelle " (sc. 17)
is worthy of its renown. In one of the longest soliloquies
Moliere wrote, Sganarelle discusses the honor of the deceived
husband. At first on fire to avenge his wrong, physical terror
soon persuades him that he prefers to be a live coward rather
than a dead hero, a determination which he states in so many
words. Likewise, Mascarille of the " Depit Amoureux " (V,
i) affirms his preference for this world rather than the next, —
the only other instance in Moliere of fear as the theme of a
comic monolog, and this an abridgment of its Italian source,
"L'Interesse" (I, 4).

It is noteworthy that nearly all of the predecessors and suc
cessors of Falstaff, both in England and on the continent, de
pend upon the fear of the speaker to incite the laughter of the
audience. Falstaif himself is the exception to the rule. Not
fear, but prudence, is the mainspring of comedy in his solilo
quies on honor. True, stage tradition has done its best to
render him the conventional coward. At the time of the
restoration, Thomas Fuller referred to him as "a thrasonical
Puff and emblem of Mock-valour,"42 a characterization which
is not corroborated by a study of the soliloquies.

In the masterly "Essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir
John Falstaff " (1777), Maurice Morgann has vindicated Fal-
staff's courage for all time, chiefly by citation from his solilo-

42 The Worthies of England, edited by Nicholas, Vol. II, p. 131.

125

quies. "I have led my ragamuffins where they are pepper'd.
There's not three of my hundred and fifty left alive," an
nounces Falstaff solus (" The First Part of Henry the Fourth,"
V, 3> 35-38). "To whom does he say this?" demands Mor-
gann.43 " To himself only ; he speaks in soliloquy. There is
no questioning the fact, he led them ; they were peppered; there
were not three left alive" The critic concedes, on second
thought, that FalstafFs "modes of expression, even in solilo
quy, will admit of some abatement," in regard to the precise
number who survived ; but, in general, the position is well taken
that the soliloquy has the ring of sincerity. As to FalstafFs
notions of honor, Morgann calls attention to the fact that
" these passages are spoken in soliloquy and in battle : If every
soliloquy made under similar circumstances were as audible as
FalstafFs, the imputation might be found too general for cen
sure."*4 Herein lies the secret of the universal appeal of the
soliloquies. "Falstaff was a kind of military free-thinker,"
concludes his apologist.45 " He stands upon the ground of
natural courage only and common sense, and has, it seems, too
much wit for a hero."

Morgann's commentary is the key to FalstafFs soliloquies on
honor. It is the naturalism of his emotions and the logic of
his " free-thinking," as well as his witty manner of express
ing himself, which startle his audience into thoughtful laughter.
"Honor pricks me on," he asserts (V, I, 127-143) — surely the
utterance of a valorous spirit. "Yea, but how if honor prick
me off ? " Here his analytical mind seizes the problem. " Can
honor set to a leg ? " His wit conducts the catechism. The
point of view may be materialistic, but, granting the premises,
the conclusion is inevitable : " Honor is a mere scutcheon."
Falstaff is shocked by the concrete example of his abstract
theorizing, when he comes upon the corpse of Sir Walter
Blunt. "There's honor for you," he exclaims (V, 3, 32), and
again, " I like not such grinning honor as Sir Walter hath "

^'Eighteenth Century Essays on Shakespeare, edited by D. Nichol Smith,
p. 262.

44 U. s., p. 264.
46 U. s., p. 264.

126

(V, 3> 63). The theme is resumed from a deeply personal
standpoint (V, 4, 111-131). The Prince having departed
after pronouncing a brief valediction over his fat comrade's
body, that gentleman springs up, enraged and terrorized. This
is not the fear of a weakling, but rather the instinctive dread
of death found in every creature capable of feeling. FalstafFs
sense of humor does not desert him, although his jesting is in
deadly earnest when he affirms, " To die is to be a counterfeit,"
a conviction which he translates into the proverb, " The better
part of valor is discretion." In the presence of "this gun
powder Percy," cunning, as well as fear, lays hold of Fal
stafFs mood. Repulsive and ghastly, the stabbing terminates
the scene, a grotesquely fitting culmination of the series of
soliloquies on honor. The episode must have wrought its
audience well-nigh to the point of hysteria; and, if this is not
deemed compensation for its barbarity, let it be remembered
that the corpse had to be removed in some way, and that at
least this has the merit of being a theatrical method.

Next to the honor soliloquies, those on Justice Shallow are
most famous. The celebrated description of the Justice, in
which he is likened to a " forked radish " and other delightful
similes (Part II, III, 2, 323-357), depends incidentally on its
word-painting and word-play for amusement, and funda
mentally on the humorous contrast in temperament and physi
que between the narrator and the hero of the narrative. Again
the fat knight makes merry at the expense of the lean squire
in the speech beginning, "If I were saw'd into quantities, I
should make four dozen of such bearded hermits' staves as
Master Shallow" (Part II, V, i, 69-95). He proceeds to
analyze " the semblable coherence of his men's spirits and his,"
and he concludes with one of those vivid comparisons indica
tive of his exuberant spirits, " O you shall see him laugh till his
face be like a wet cloak ill laid up."

The contemptuous attitude of the big toward the small and
of vigor toward pusillanimity is an essentially comic relation, as
evidenced by FalstafFs account of Shallow and by Hotspur's
caustic description of the foppish envoy (Part I, I, 3, 29-69).
FalstafFs adverse comment of young Lancaster is not quite so

127

happy, although thoroughly characteristic (Part II, IV, 3, 92-
102) ; but it is merged into the renowned dissertation on the
merits of " a good sherris-sack," which, in its orderly account
of the physical and psychological benefits resulting from the
stimulant, is a sort of sermon joyeux on the text, "O God,
that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away
their brains ! "

The remaining soliloquies of Falstaff are of comparative
insignificance. Two sprightly exit speeches (Part I, III, 3,
229-230; Part II, I, 2, 272-278), and a scurrilous link which
has the sole merit of being consistent with the mood of the
monologist (Part II, I, 2, 255-260) complete the list of Fal-
staff's soliloquies in "Henry the Fourth."* Those in "The
Merry Wives " are on a lower plain of humor. They include
three links quite lacking in distinction,46 a mildly amusing ac
count of Falstaff 's escapade in the Thames (III, 5, 4-18),
and a pseudo-comic lament containing, presumably, a local
reference to the courtly audience at Windsor: "If it should
come to the ear of the court, how I have been transformed and
how my transformation hath been wash'd and cudgell'd, they
would melt me out of my fat drop by drop, and liquor fisher
men's boots with me" (IV, 5, 95-105). The oil in Falstaff,
almost as inexhaustible as the widow's oil, recurs as the subject
of another monologic jest (V, 5, 38-40). The most conspicu
ous soliloquy in the piece is the one beginning, " The Windsor
bell hath struck twelve" (V, 5, 1-16). Here, if tradition is
authentic, is the realization of Queen Elizabeth's wish : Falstaff
is in love. The grandiose expression of his amorous desire is
very close to a burlesque of those per fervid soliloquies of the
times anticipating the gratification of passion.

So transitory is the effect of the monologs in "The Merry
Wives " that, whenever reference is made to the soliloquies of
Falstaff, it is invariably to the immortal ones in "Henry the
Fourth." There the true Falstaff, philosopher and wit,
analyzes and marshals his ideas. Whether his theme is sherris,
Shallow or honor, the analytical process is evident. Falstaff
is never in doubt, however. His opinions are fixed, dogmatic,

46 II, 2, 143-149, 156-159; III, 5, 58-60.

128

argumentative and humorously sequential. These qualities are
laughably apparent in the soliloquy in which honor is prac
tically annihilated by a pseudo-Socratic method of interroga
tion. The question-and-answer device with which Falcon-
bridge epitomizes social chit chat (I, I, 193-204) also serves to
relieve the monotony of the monolog, but it contains no sug
gestion of Falstaffian ratiocination.

LAUNCELOT GOBBO

It remains for Launcelot Gobbo, clown though he is, to com
bine in soliloquy (II, 2, 1-33) the quick interchange of con
versation with the psychological attitude of uncertainty. His
conscience and the fiend personify the opposing forces warring
within him. To be sure, the subject of his anxiety and his
absurd rumination thereon are not calculated to give the effect
of serious introspection. Dr. Kilian condemns the " purely
theatrical " handling of the speech, observing that the element
of dialog can be happily adapted to monolog, as Lessing has
shown.47 There is no doubt that the conversational method
is capable of tragic as well as comic effects in soliloquy.48
Launcelot is mock serious. " ' Budge,' says the fiend. ' Budge
not,' says my conscience " : his remarks border on the bur
lesque of those soliloquies of all ages which depict the crisis
" where duty and inclination come nobly to the grapple."
"The Rehearsal" (1671) of Villers and his companions con
tains a well-known parody of the love-versus-honor soliloquy
in vogue at the time: Volscious, alone with one boot on, the
other off, is torn by conflicting impulses :

" Honor, aloud, commands, pluck both boots on ;
But softer Love does whisper, put on none " (III, 2).

Launcelot's monolog is not so obvious a parody, but it is " the
atrical," as Dr. Kilian says. In fact, although Launcelot is a
clown rather than an analyst, his histrionic, serio-comic ponder
ing anticipates the solemn weighing of the pro's and con's of a
question by Malvolio and Benedick.

41 Shakespeare Jahrbuch, Vol. XXXIX, p. 38.
48 See ante, p. 102.

129

MALVOLIO

Malvolio's soliloquy (II, 5, 27 ff.) begins with some exalted
imaginings of his future state, but his analytical frame of mind
is evidenced by his deliberate examination of the superscription
of the letter and by his painstaking consideration of the " M,
O, A, I." " ' M, O, A, I, doth "sway my life.' Nay, but first,
let me see, let me see, let me see": his cautious ruminations
are comic in themselves, and the fun grows uproarious in the
comments and rejoinders of the eaves-droppers. The situa
tion, made possible by the convention of the overheard solilo
quy,49 is largely responsible for the hilarity of the occasion;
but, after all, Malvolio's ponderous weighing of the evidence is
the pivot about which the merry by-plot revolves. His very
deliberation creates, as it were, an atmosphere of comic
suspense, and his smug conclusion, after reading the letter,
gives the finishing touch of joyous anticipation.

His next soliloquy (III, 4, 71-91) shows him enmeshed in
the plot, the amusement culminating in his pondering on
Olivia's words and finding in them a deeply amorous signi
ficance. Exactly the same device is used in Benedick's solilo
quy (Much Ado," II, 3, 266-273 ).50 Indeed, Shakespeare re
peats himself in the use of the comic monologs by these two
characters : both soliloquizers are revealed the dupes of eaves
dropping conspirators, and both appear absurd coxcombs in
their infatuation.

BENEDICK

Benedick is much more elaborately and sympathetically de
picted than Malvolio, but nevertheless the audience is inclined
to laugh at him rather than with him. He is the outgrowth of
such fantastic soliloquizers as Biron of "Love's Labor's
Lost " ; and Benedick's railings against love have remote proto
types in the French monologues by lovers and in the sermons
joyeux on love, women and marriage,61 as well as in occasional
soliloquies of Roman comedy. The " Trinummus " of Plautus

49 See ante, p. 93.

60 Cf. also All's Well, IV, i, 27-69; see ante, p. 119.

61 Romania, Vol. XV, p. 362.

130

contains a lengthy rumination by Lysiteles (II, i), in which the
problem of love-versus-aggrandisement is carefully and some
what humorously weighed. Love is characterized as " a fawn
ing flatterer, a rapacious grappler, a deceiver, a sweet-tooth, a
spoiler, a corrupter of men who court retirement," and the
like, — an attitude more violent then Benedick's, but somewhat
analogous to his feelings before he becomes enthralled.

Soliloquy (II, 3, 7-39) discloses his point of view at the
outset: he marvels "that one man, seeing how much another
is a fool when he dedicates his behaviors to love, will, after
he has laughed at such shallow follies in others, become the
argument of his own scorn by falling in love." After consid
ering the woful plight of Claudio, he turns his attention to
himself : may he be so converted? He thinks not. His super
cilious arrogance, as he approaches the pitfall, adds amusement
as well as interest to his cogitations. Pondering on his ada
mantine invulnerability to feminine charms, he is tricked into
cataloging the graces of the paragon whom he might conde
scend to wed. Rich, wise, virtuous, fair, noble, of good dis
course, an excellent musician, — so run his requirements, but
he graciously leaves one detail to providence : " and her hair
shall be of what color it please God." With masterly technic,
the whole soliloquy is keyed to the mood of high comedy. Pre
ceded by a brief colloquy with the boy and concluded with a
cleverly prepared entrance, Benedick's intervening speech gives
the impression of thought, a droll and natural revelation of his
ripeness for love, unknown to himself.

His next soliloquy (II, 3, 228-255) is a sequel to the preced
ing one. Now he discovers his affection for Beatrice. The
more serious his feelings become, the more delightful for the
audience, which usually relishes beholding the biter bit.
Benedick himself forsees that he will be the butt of raillery,
but he waives the point. The fun is climactic, and the entrance
of the subject of the discourse gives the cue for the final touch :
"I do spy some marks of love in her." Her acrid remarks,
accompanied by her withdrawal, affords Benedick an oppor
tunity to conclude his musings (II, 3, 266-273) with superb
confidence and compassion. His other soliloquies are of little

131

importance. The first one (II, i, 208-216) shows him nettled
by Beatrice's sharp tongue. In the last one (V, 2, 25-41), he
sings an old song and babbles amorously, an excellent prepara
tion for the vivacity of the ensuing scene.

CONCLUSION

Situation, language and mood all add to the ludicrous effect-
of the Shakespearean monolog. Situation is of the least con
sequence, since often the speech may be regarded as indepen
dent of its setting. Notable exceptions, however, are afforded '
by the monolog of the Porter in " Macbeth," significant by
contrast, and by Falstaff's stabbing, the culmination of a series
of episodes and ideas. Shakespeare does not despise the tricks
of language, such as puns, malapropisms, and incorrect combi
nations of words, — especially in his early work. Further, he
infuses his comic monologs with a striking mood, generally one
of gaiety, but sometimes of exaggeration, violence or perplex
ity. The mood, however, subserves the personality of the
speaker, which, in the final analysis, constitutes the essential
comedy of the soliloquy.

Launce the clown, Pyramus and Thisbe, mock hero and
heroine, Thersites the cynic, and Autolycus the rogue, — these
comic monologists have impressed their individualities on the
world's memory. Yet they may be styled figures of one dimen
sion, as they conform more or less closely to a type. Their
speeches were not without predecessors, but never before was
the appeal so irresistible. The anecdote had never been quite
so effectively told as by Launce; the burlesque monodies had
never been so extravagantly farcical as those of Pyramus and
Thisbe ; no railer had been so bitterly violent as Thersites ; no
rogue so charmingly droll as Autolycus.

As a matter of course, the analysts are more individual than
the stock figures. Launcelot Gobbo's monolog piques the im
agination, because of its clownish attempt at analytical psy
chology; Malvolio adds the element of ponderous dignity to
his meditations, another stimulus for producing mirth; while
Benedick actually attains comic introspection. He is not de
ciphering the puzzle of " M, O, A, I," but thinking gravely—

132

and therein lies the humor — on the problem of love and its
relation to himself. Thus Shakespeare's comic monologs run
the gamut from buffoonery to high comedy, from the story
frankly addressed to the audience to the soliloquy as a conven
tionalized medium for the revelation of thought and feeling.
The use of the thoughtful monolog for provoking laughter is
not original with Shakespeare. It was employed in France as
early as " Maitre Pierre Patelin" (1469 c.), and in England
at rare intervals from the time of the Playwright of Wakefield
and John Heywood; but not until Shakespeare does it unite a
high degree of technical consistency with an inimitable expres
sion of individuality.

Faulconbridge's somewhat trivial commentaries on social
life carry, not only because of their satiric tang, but also be
cause they characterize the speaker; while the reasoning of
Falstaff has all the weight of his own personality. His series
of soliloquies on honor, among the most notable in English
drama, involve the issue of life or death. Related to the mono-
logs of the miles gloriousus, the coward gracioso, and kindred
types, these are the opinions of an experienced soldier, logical
and witty. His sentiments are laughable, not because they are
fantastic or grotesque, but because they are firmly rooted in
human nature. Moreover, although detachable from the rest
of the drama, FalstafFs soliloquies constitute a body of evi
dence essential for a comprehension of his character. As
Hamlet's musings reveal the tragic tensity of his nature, so
FalstafFs disclose his genial and pervasive comic spirit.

CHAPTER VI

THE REVELATION OF THOUGHT AND FEELING
The transition from the soliloquy which is frankly speech to
that which implies a revelation of thought and emotion is
gradual and almost imperceptible. Yet the distinction is evi
dent : Launce talks, whereas Hamlet thinks and feels. As we
have observed, the comic monologist sometimes attains the
mood of introspection, but even Falstaff addresses the au
dience. In tragedy and dramatic romance, on the other hand,
the introspective soliloquy is the rule rather than the exception.

THE APOLOGY FOR THE INTROSPECTIVE SOLILOQUY
The apologies which dramatists of various ages and nations
have inserted in their works to account for the soliloquizer's
speaking his inmost thoughts have merely served to accentuate
the unreality of the convention. Clytemnestra's soliloquy which
opens the second act of Seneca's "Agamemnon" seems pur
posely to ignore the medium of speech, for the Nurse inter
rupts, asking the cause of Clytemnestra's silent ("tacita")
brooding, and the point is emphasized by repetition, — "Although
thou art silent" ("Licet ipsa sileas"). Evidently Studley,
who Englished the piece for the " Tenne Tragedies," could not
fathom the implication : speech was speech to him. Therefore
he altered the Nurse's question, " Quid tacita versas ? " to
" What muttering dost thou say ? "

The soliloquy as a talking to one's self is the usual explana
tion, and this is a significant step toward introspection, since
the idea of the address to the audience is thereby carefully
excluded. After the Nurse's monolog beginning the Euripi-
dean " Medea," the Attendant comes to her with the inquiry,
"Why dost thou . . . stand here at the gate alone, loudly
lamenting to thyself the piteous tale?" Similar apologies
occur in Robert Greene's "Alphonsus"1 and in Calderon's

1 Works, edited by J. C. Collins, Vol. I, p. 116.

133

134

"Painter of His Own Dishonor."2 At the opening of the
Towneley " Secunda Pastorum," the First Shepherd thus apol
ogizes for his audible musings :

" It does me good, as I walk thus by myn oone,
Of this warld for to talk in maner of mone."

So Preston in his "Cambises" has the soliloquizing Lord
Smirdis remark, "Solitary to myself e now I may talke."3 The
excuse recurs in the nineteenth century poets.4 David of
Browning's " Saul " says, " Let me tell out my tale to its end
ing — my voice to my heart."

Even Hamlet laments that he is reduced to the extremity of
unpacking his heart with words (II, 2, 614), but the next
thought, "About, my brain ! " brings back his soliloquy into the
realm of ratiocination. Indeed the only occurrence in Shake
speare of anything bordering on an explanation of the conven
tion is the scene in which Titus Andronicus, discovered apos
trophizing the stones, offers this curious reason for the
phenomenon :

" Therefore I tell my sorrows to the stones ;
Who, though they cannot answer my distress,
Yet in some sort they are better than the tribunes,
For they will not intercept my tale " (III, i, 37-40).

The time-honored custom of addressing the soliloquy to the
air is no less fanciful, but perhaps it is a step nearer subjectiv
ity, since the ideas are thereby dissociated not only from the
spectators but also from the entire objective world. The Pro
metheus of Aeschylus, left chained to the rock, invokes the
"divine ether and swift-winged winds," — the cry of his very
soul piercing the solitude.

" Alas ! alas ! 'tis hard to speak to the winds ;
Still harder to be dumb,"

he mourns. Euripides attempts the same motivation in the
soliloquy of the protagonist opening the " Iphegenia among the

* Eight Dramas of Calderon, by Edward Fitzgerald, p. 54.
'Manly, Vol. II, p. 190.

* See ante, p. 96.

135

Tauri " : " Strange visions the past night brought me, which I
will tell to the air, if there is really any help in that." Pieces
as widely different as Calderon's "Physician of his Honor"
(I, 5) and the "Virginius" (I, 2) of Sheridan Knowles have
heroines who confide the secret of their love to the "gentle
air." " O thou most silent air, that shalt not hear what now
I think!" cries Shelley's Cenci (I, i) in a strained effort to
reconcile the convention with reality. In the same soliloquy
Cenci affirms that he need not speak, "though the heart tri
umphs with itself in words." "This shows," observes Pro
fessor Bates,5 "that Shelley himself regarded the soliloquy as
a form of actual speech instead of as a merely symbolic means
of making known to us unspoken and concealed feelings that
could not otherwise be made manifest."

All of the apologists admit that the soliloquizer is talking —
else there would be no need of apology — yet in each form of
explanation there is an attempt to harmonize the symbol with
the fact. The soliloquizer is talking to himself, assert one
group of apologists, of whom Moliere and Joanna Baillie6 take
elaborate pains to 'indicate that the speaker is in a kind of
trance, as he gives utterance to his secret thoughts and feelings.
Other dramatists present a solitary character talking to the
air ; but Shelley, evidently trying to depict the heart triumphing
with itself in words, is forced by his own reasoning into a
logical blind-alley, and accordingly he strikes his soliloquizer
dumb. Not so Shakespeare's Titus, who, unlike the creatures
of other apologists, boldly defends his apostrophe as sensible
and consistent.

THE APOSTROPHE

Apostrophes to the air and even to the stones transcend the
commonplace and consequently give range to the spirit. In
deed the apostrophe is an important rhetorical contrivance for
expressing the inmost convictions and impulses. Since the
beginning of drama, the number and variety of monologic apos
trophes is legion. Leo observes that the only soliloquies in the

0 A Study of Shelley's Drama, the Cenci, p. 53.
8 See ante, p. 96.

136

extant dramas of Aeschylus — the openings of "Prometheus
Bound," "Agamemnon" and "Eumenides" — are all uttered
not as communings with the soul, but as apostrophes to the
gods or to the encompassing solitude of the elements!7 The
soliloquies of classic tragedy owe no small measure of their
lofty mood to the device, and Seneca helps to preserve the tra
dition for England. Jasper Heywood, translating Seneca's
"Thyestes," added a final monolog by the protagonist. Be
ginning

" O King of Mytis dungeon darke, and grisly Ghosts of hell,"

it abounds in the grandiose apostrophes introduced by "O"
which delighted the Elizabethans, and which were immortalized
in parody by "A Midsummer-Night's Dream" (V, i).

Shakespeare freely uses the apostrophe in impassioned and
introspective soliloquies. The address to the dead and the
sleeping, as well as to dagger and sword, we have already dis
cussed.8 The soliloquizer often addresses himself, a device
which, according to Leo (p. 94), first appears in Hesiod. In
Shakespeare the self -adjuration is sometimes jesting,9 often
serious,10 and occasionally marked by a tragic intensity, as
when, for example, Angelo asks, " What dost thou, or what art
thou, Angelo?"11 Akin to the apostrophe of self is Hamlet's
calling upon his heart and sinews (I, 5, 93-94), and again upon
his heart and soul (III, 2, 411, 417).

Hamlet's memorable "Remember thee!" (I, 5, 97-104)
illustrates another kind of apostrophe frequent in Shake
spearean soliloquy, the address to a character who has just
made his exit. By aid of this device, the playwright elicits a
variety of emotions, — sympathy in the farewells to Andronicus
(III, i, 289) and Shylock (II, 5, 56-57), merriment in the

7 Friedrich Leo : " Der Monolog im Drama : ein Beitrag zur griechische-
romischen Poetik," Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wis-
senschaften zu Gottingen Philologisch-Historische Klasse, Neue Folge, Band
X, Nro. 5, Berlin, 1908, p. 9.

8 See ante, pp. 75, 76, 79.

9 Merry Wives, II, 2, 144-147; III, 5, 142-144.

10 Titus Andronicus, I, i, 338-340; II, i, 12. Two Gentlemen, V, 4, 18.
King Lear, I, 4, 4.

11 Measure for Measure, II, 2, 173.

137

quips of King Henry the Fifth (IV, i, 34, 63), excitement in
the curses invoked on Gremio in " The Taming of the Shrew "
(II, i, 406) and on the Nurse of "Romeo and Juliet" (III, 5,
235), and sentiment in Romeo's lover-like adjuration to the
departing Juliet (II, 2, 187-188) and in Othello's impassioned
tribute to Desdemona as she withdraws (III, 3, 88-89).

The romantic soliloquy often contains an address to the
absent loved one. Proteus apostrophizes his Julra, and Valen
tine his Sylvia (I, i, 66-69; V, 4, 11-12), Jessica her Lorenzo
(II, 3, 19-21), and Juliet her Romeo (III, 2, 6, 17). The
absent sweetheart supposedly dead is invoked by Romeo in the
famous line "Well, Juliet, I will lie with thee tonight" (V, i,
34) and by Antony under similar circumstances in his " I will
o'ertake thee, Cleopatra" (IV, 14, 44).

The character apostrophized is usually a leading figure of
the drama: Richard the Second is thus addressed (II, 3, 18),
and so are Antony of "Antony and Cleopatra" (IV, 9, 18-23)
and Posthumus of " Cymbeline" (III, 6, 14-15; IV, i, 15-19).
Cymbeline himself is invoked in an exceptionally awkward
fashion (III, 3, 99), the attempt at the grand style scarcely
fitting the crudely narrative monolog. On the other hand, the
keen analysis of personality and the bold sweep of imagination
characterizing Tarty Mar.he.tfi's opening soliloquy (I, 5, 16-31)
depend upon the same rhetorical device. The reading of Mac.-
beth^sjetter, to be sure, adds naturalism to the apostrophe to
the_ writer, and the letter-reading contrivance likewise lends
vivacity to Hotspur's upbraiding of his lordly correspondent
(II, 3, 9-16), the reply of the Countess to her "rash and un
bridled boy" ("All's Well," III, 2, 30), and Pisanio's grieved
remonstrance to his master ("Cymbeline," III, 2, 1-12). Pi-
sanio concludes his soliloquy by violently reproaching the letter
itself.

Indeed the variety of things apostrophized defies classifica
tion, although it is interesting to note some of the conspicuous
themes. Supplication is often made to the night and the moon
by Elizabethan soliloquizers, to which fact the burlesque invo
cations of Pyramus and Thisbe testify (V, i, 171-173* 27°-
280, 310). Juliet's rhapsody beginning "Come, civil night,"

138

and concluding "Come, gentle night, come, loving, black-
browed night" (III, 2, 10-20) indicates the romantic possi
bilities of the apostrophe ; while Lady Macbeth's " Come^thick
night" (I, 5, 51) rej^als_JtsJrajgirjUW^ — THeTasT words of
Enobarbus to the night and the moon (IV, 9, 5, 6-15) display
the quasi-tragic effects of the apostrophe.

The invocation to sleep gives rise to some of the noblest
poetry in Shakespeare, — for example, Henry the Fourth's ma
jestic and musical revery (Part II, III, I, 5-30). Henry's
supplication to "gentle Sleep," "thou dull god," and "partial
Sleep " seem a prelude to the various epithets into which Mac
beth's imagination coins the theme (II, 2, 36-40) ; while
lachimo's soliloquy over the slumbering Imogen affords an
epilog to the series :

" O sleep, thou ape of death, lie dull upon her ! " (II, 2, 31).

Apostrophes to abstract qualities, like those to sleep, are
especially suited to the mood of the reflective soliloquy, — for
example, Mark Antony's address to Mischief ("Julius Caesar,"
III, 2, 265), Hamlet's to Frailty (I, 2, 146), and Henry the
Fifth's elaborate apostrophe to Ceremony (IV, 2, 257-283).
The frequency of personifications in Elizabethan drama is
doubtless due to the influence of the morality plays. Invoca
tions of the goddess Fortune, very prevalent in Elizabethan
days, appear in the soliloquies of almost every age and clime.
Cloten invokes the fickle deity (IV, I, 25), as Rakshasa does
in the Sanskrit piece " Mudra-Rakshasa."12

THE PRAYER

The address to qualities and things sometimes assumes the
guise of prayer. Lear's moralizing on "You houseless pov
erty" he styles a prayer (III, 4, 27). Timon's misanthropic
moralizing on one occasion begins, " O blessed breeding sun "
(IV, 3, i), and on another occasion, "Common mother,
thou," — an apostrophe to the earth (IV, 3, 177) ; while his
multitudinous apostrophes to Athens, its walls, matrons, slaves,
fools, bankrupts, and so forth, are ironically blended into a

12 Select Specimens of the Hindu Drama, Vol. II, p. 175.

139

semblance to prayer, concluding with an "Amen" (IV, I,
1-41). One of the soliloquies of Thersites is also merged
into a violently ironic prayer, terminating in a similar fashion :
"I have said my prayers, and devil Envy say Amen" (II, 3,
10-24).

Doubtless due to the religious origin of the serious drama,
the prayer, especially as the opening monolog, is one of the
oldest forms of soliloquy. Aeschylus abounds in supplications
to the elements and to divinities, and Euripides revives the
device, practically abandoned by Sophocles. The " Suppliants "
and " Phoenician Maidens " of Euripides begin with invoca
tions of the gods. Seneca also uses the opening prayer ; at the
outset of the " Medea," for example, the heroine entreats the
vengeance of the gods.

Likewise the miracle plays often open with prayer. The
Coventry cycle is especially addicted to this introduction, and
the Abraham play of the York group effectively utilizes the
contrivance. Even the brisk buffoonery of the Towneley Noah
play is prologed by a long and pious invocation. The miracles
sometimes begin with a succession of prayers,13 and the tradi
tion of the opening prayer is continued in a number of the
moralities. Rastell's "Nature of the Four Elements" (1517
c.) has a prolog which is a prayer for the audience, and
Lyndsay's " Satire of the Three Estates " opens with a
prayer to the " Lord of Lords and King of Kings." In " Man
kind," Tytyvillus enters and observes Mankind on his knees,
saying his "Pater noster,"14 — a situation similar to that in
which Hamlet sees the King praying (III, 3).

The prayers which are occasionally interspersed in the early
drama of England are the result of classical as well as native
influence. Tancred's invocation to Jove the thunderer in " Gis-
mond of Salerne" (IV, 2) is a stock device in Seneca,15
destined to become no less familiar in English tragedy. Side

"Examples: the York Flight of Egypt, p. 138, and the Coventry Noah's
Flood, p. 40.

14 Manly, Vol. I, p. 336.

15 J. W. Cunliffe : " Gismond of Salerne," Publications of the Modern Lan
guage Association of America, New Series, Vol. XIV, No. 2, p. 454.

140

by side with such prayers to mythological deities are many
supplications to the Christian god in the works of Shake
speare's predecessors. Shakespeare's master Marlowe puts in
the mouth of the dying Sigismund a cry to the "just and
dreadful punisher of sin" ("Tamburlaine," Part II, II, 3),
while Olympia, about to suicide, exclaims,

" Ah sacred Mahomet, if this be sin,
Entreat a pardon of the God of Heaven " (u. s., Ill, 4).

The introspective attitude of prayer, as well as its deep spir
itual significance, is invariably emphasized by Shakespeare.
He who judges all things is implored to stay his thoughts by
the King in "The Second Part of Henry the Sixth" (III, 2,
136-146). On the eve of battle, Richmond of "Richard the
Third " prays for victory :

" Make us thy ministers of chastisement
That we may praise Thee in the victory" (V, 3, 114-115).

Likewise, before the fight, Henry the Fifth in majestic phrase
asks aid of the God of battles, at the same time beseeching par
don for his father's sin (IV, I, 306-322). King Henry's ac
count of the devices he has used for obtaining divine forgive
ness give the impression of rhetorical pageantry rather than
sincere contrition, since, like the King in " Hamlet," he wants
to be pardoned and retain the offence. The soliloquy of
Claudius, however, is a human document depicting a guilty
soul's struggle to pray (III, 3, 36-72). Realizing the enormity
of his crime, he cannot find words with which to ask forgive
ness. He starts and halts. Then comes the revelation of the
divine code, questions, exclamations, the poignant plea for help,
the pliant yielding of the knees, and the beautiful trust of
the concluding hope. "The final 'All may be well!'" says
Coleridge,16 " is remarkable ; the degree of merit attributed by
the self-flattering soul to its own struggle, though baffled, and
to the indefinite half-promise, half-command, to persevere in
religious duties. The solution is in the divine medium of the
Christian doctrine of expiation." The whole soliloquy seems
a depiction of feelings and ideas rather than of spoken words.

16 Furness Variorum Edition of Hamlet, Vol. I, p. 280.

141

The pagan prayers in Shakespeare are treated with less elab
oration than the Christian ones. Pericles calls upon "Thou
god of this great vast " and upon Lucina, " divinest patroness "
(III, i, 1-14). Posthumus calls upon the gods in his anguish
•(V, I, 7, 31), and Imogen's pagan prayer before sleeping is
charming in its simplicity and brevity (II, i, &-io). " By your
leave, gods!" cries Titinius before killing himself ("Julius
Caesar," V, 3, 89), but such invocations are too short to merit
consideration as prayers. On the other hand, Lady Macbeth's
famous supplication to the "Spirits that tend on mortal
thoughts" (I, 5, 41-5 1) is especially significant in this study
for two reasons : first, since it invokes the aid of " murdering
ministers," it differs from the other prayers in its evil intent;
second, the spirits called upon attend thoughts, thus implying —
and the context corroborates the assumption — that the solilo
quy is a revelation of thought. Lady Macbeth's turgid utter
ance seems a glimpse of dark and hidden purposes yet un-
phrased, and the impression is given color by the summoning
of the spirits attending deadly thoughts.

TEXTUAL INDICATIONS OF INTROSPECTION
As in the case of Lady Macbeth's baneful prayer, introspec
tion is often indicated by a reference to thought in the text of
the soliloquy. Thus Chanakya of the " Mudra-Rakshasa "
speaks of "these anxious thoughts."17 The introspective char
acter of Senecan drama leaves its mark on the majority of the
soliloquies of English tragedy. To be sure, medieval tradition,
as manifested in the reflections of Everyman, has its influence;
but it is the Senecan tragedy " Gorboduc " which first clearly
enunciates the English soliloquy as a revelation of thought inti
mately associated with the progress of the action. The text of
" Gorboduc," however, offers no such evidence of mental proc
esses as occur in "The Misfortunes of Arthur." There
Mordred begins with a translation of " Thyestes," 418-420 :18

" A troubled head : my mind revolts to fear,
And bears my body back."18

1T Select Specimens of the Theater of the Hindus, Vol. II, p. 193.

18 See Cunliffe's Senecan Influence, p. 149, and also Appendix II.

19 Hazlitt's Dodsley, Vol. IV, p. 295.

142

The soliloquizer continues, " I inwards feel my fall " — an obser
vation nothing if not introspective ; and he adds, " My thoughts
misgive me much." In "Arden of Feversham," Mosbie opens
a soliloquy with the explanation, " Disturbed thoughts drive me
from company,"20 and Michael of the same piece begins his
meditations with a reference to the 'conflicting thoughts en
camped in his breast.'20 Likewise Bajazet at the opening of
" The First Part of Selimus " exclaims,

" So, Bajazet, now thou remainest alone,
Unrip the thoughts that harbor in thy breast, — "

an unequivocal acknowledgment that the soliloquy depicts
thought. The fact that the Elizabethan word " thought " may
signify " care," " anxiety," " sorrow " or " brooding " does not
dissociate the term from intellectual processes. Greene's Or
lando thus catechises himself,

" Orlando, what contrarious thoughts be these
That flock with doubtful motions in thy mind?"21

Shakespeare's predecessors afford a number of similar in
stances, and, after his usage crystallizes the introspective solilo
quy as a convention, his successors often avail themselves of
it. In one of the most effectively histrionic soliloquies in the
language, Antonio of Marston's "Antonio and Mellida " muses
on the introspective faculties in this fashion :

" When discursive powers fly out,
And roam in progress through the bounds of heaven,
The soul itself gallops along with them,
As chieftain of this winged troop of thought,
Whilst the dull lodge of spirit standeth waste,
Until the soul return from . What was't I said ? "a

While soaring in the realms of imagination, Marston's hero
makes an abrupt transition to speech. It is a peculiarity of the
convention that, even when the soliloquy most graphically
reveals the workings of the brain, there is apt to be some refer
ence to the tongue as the means of expression — an indication

20 Arden of Feversham, edited by Dr. N. Delius, pp. 44, 37.

21 Plays and Poems, edited by J. C. Collins, Vol. I, p. 239.

22 Works, edited by A. H. Bullen, Vol. I, p. 63.

143

that the Elizabethans were not fully conscious of the symbolic
value of the artifice they had created. Macbeth beholds the
fatal vision,

" A dagger of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain " (II, i, 38-39) ;

and yet in another instant he regrets the words of his soliloquy :

" Whiles I threat he lives :
Words to the heat of deeds too cold breath gives" (II, i, 61).

"About, my brain!" cries Hamlet (II, 2, 617), and dexter
ously the audience is transported into his mental processes ; but
only a moment before, he laments his unpacking his heart with
words. To be sure, there is nothing violently antipodal in
these two assertions: the reflection. may be interpreted either
as thought or as speech. Quite possibly neither playwright
nor auditor ever considered the matter.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to observe that in the medita
tions of Shakespearean soliloquizers, particularly in those of
Hamlet, the word "thought" and the idea of thinking con
stantly recur. " Let me not think on't ! " says Hamlet to him
self (1, 2, 146) . Again, he speaks of ' the table of his memory '
and ' the book and volume of his brain ' (I, 5, 98, 103) . " Con
science" he uses in the sense of "pondering" or "thought"
(III, i, 83) ; and the whole soliloquy is " sicklied o'er with the
pale cast of thought" — "thought" here signifying "anxious

reflection."

" Whether it be

Bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple
Of thinking too precisely on the event, —
A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward, —

thus in Hamlet's last soliloquy he analyzes his reasoning, — an
indubitably introspective attitude.

The word " thought " so frequently recurs in Shakespearean
soliloquy that it appears intentionally used to accentuate the
meditative mood. "Now, York, or never, steel thy fearful
thoughts" sounds the key note of a long soliloquy in "The

144

Second Part of Henry the Sixth" (III, i, 331-383), a speech
containing this significant passage :

" Faster than spring-time showers comes thought on thought,
And not a thought but thinks on dignity.
My brain more busy than the laboring spider
Weaves tedious snares to trap mine enemies."

Equally clear is the implication of thinking in the opening speech
by Richard the Third, terminated with the abrupt conclusion,
"Dive, thoughts, down to my soul." Schlegel defends the
soliloquy on the grounds that " the poet has the right in solilo
quies to lend a voice to the most hidden thoughts,"23 and
Brandes expresses a similar idea when he affirms that "the
monolog, as a whole, is a non-realistic unfolding of secret
thoughts in words."24

There is sustained emphasis on the thought element in the
soliloquy of Richard the Second in which he lays bare the
workings of his brain (V, 5, 1-66) :

" My brain I'll prove the female to my soul,
My soul the father ; and these two beget
A generation of still-breeding thoughts."

"Thoughts of things divine" turn his attention to some per
plexities occasioned by the holy word. " Thoughts tending to
ambition " strive in vain to find a way out of his prison.
"Thoughts tending to content" comfort him with the assur
ance that misery has company. Thereupon the unhappy king's
imagination wiles away the time, one of his fancies being that
his thoughts are minutes.

Thought is the key note of several other Shakespearean solil
oquies. Enobarbus, for example, has a premonition that sor
rowful meditation will cause his death :

" This blows my heart.

If swift thought break it not, a swifter mean
Shall outstrike thought ; but thought will do't, I feel "

(IV, 6, 34-36).

23 Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature, translated by J. Black, p. 435.
34 William Shakespeare, p. 127.

145

But the passage which proves that Shakespeare recognized the
soliloquy as a device for revealing inaudible thoughts is the
episode in which Macbeth ponders on the prophecy of the
weird sisters (I, 3). He is horrified by the first temptation
to crime, the "thought whose murder yet is but fantastical."
While he soliloquizes, the others watch him closely, but they
are unconscious that he is speaking : " Look, how our partner's
rapt," says Banquo, and the object of their gaze, oblivious to
onlookers, continues his meditations. When he realizes his
lapse in etiquette, he apologizes, not for talking, but for
thinking :

" Give me your favor ; my dull brain was wrought
With things forgotten" (I, 3, 149—150).

THE SETTING OF THE INTROSPECTIVE SOLILOQUY
The soliloquizer's assertion that he is thinking is not the
only method of differentiating the introspective soliloquy from
dialog. A commonplace sentence preceding the monolog, one
following it, and also, occasionally, brief interruptions serve as
a contrast to exalted and intensive musings. Such short sen
tences, usually directions to servants, are by no means original
with Shakespeare, but they become thoroughly convention
alized by his usage. Accordingly, a study of the reflective
soliloquy cannot neglect this contrivance which effects its
setting.

The introspective soliloquy is often preceded by a direction
to a servant or to a social inferior. Pericles bids his lords to
let none disturb him, and then, alone, he instantly ponders on
his change of thoughts (I, 2, 1-3). So Bajazet, at the opening
of " Selimus," directs his lords to leave him, whereupon he pro
ceeds to 'unrip the thoughts that harbor in his breast.' The
same device occurs in Hamlet's speech,

" Leave me, friend. (Exeunt all but Hamlet.)
Tis now the very witching time of night " (III, 2, 405-406).

So Macbeth's

Get thee to bed. (Exit Servant.)

Is this a dagger which I see before me? " (II, i, 32-33)

146

illustrates the antithetical juxtaposition, frequent in Shake
speare,25 of the commonplace direction to an attendant and the
revelation of the inmost ideas and feelings.

The interruption of a soliloquy by a call to a servant also
creates the appearance of a distinction between speech and
thought. The calls of Brutus to Lucius (II, I, I, 3, 5), An
tony to Eros (IV, 14, 50, 54), and Macbeth to Seyton (V, 3,
19, 20, 29) may, or may not, have been intended to represent
speech as contrasted with the introspection and emotion of the
soliloquies in which they are imbedded, but this, assuredly, is
the effect produced.

" Seyton ! — I am sick at heart
When I behold — Seyton, I say ! " —

jhepro found melancholy of Macbeth's retrospection is vivified
by the summons which serves as a setting for the monolog,
opening, interrupting and closing it. Likewise the soliloquies
of Brutus and Antony are concluded as well as interrupted by
the summons.

The summons is a favorite method of terminating the solilo
quy among the Elizabethans. The first conspicuous use of the
summons-close is in two soliloquies by Tancred in " Gismond
of Salerne" (IV, 2, 84, 120). Here the effect is startling,
the abrupt call giving the impression of articulate speech fol
lowing hard upon a whirlwind of passionate cogitation.
Shakespeare's predecessors often use the device, — for example,
the conclusion of the opening soliloquy of Marlowe's Faustus :

" Here, Faustus, tire thy brains to gain a deity.
Wagner ! "

Similarly, Julia of "The Two Gentlemen of Verona" (I, 2,
66), Oliver of "As You Like It" (I, i, 92), the Senator of
"Timon" (II, i, 13-14) and Antony of "Antony and Cleo
patra" (I, 2, 134) break off their meditations by calling out
the name of a servant who instantly appears. Three of
Antony's soliloquies are terminated by a cry to Eros, who pre
sents himself on the last occasion (IV, 12, 30, 48; IV, 14, 54).

'"'Other examples: Macbeth, III, i, 48; III, i, 140; V, 3, 19. Hamlet, IV,
4, 31-32. Lear, III, 4, 26.

147

Sometimes the summoning of a servant is effected by some
such phrase as " Within here ! " used by Marlowe's Barabas
(V, 3) or "Who's there within?" which ends the meditations
of Tiberius in Jonson's "Sejanus" (III, 3). "Who's with
in?" abruptly cries Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (II, 2, 3);
"Who's there?" demands Macbeth (III, i, 72); and "Who
attends us there?" asks Antiochus of "Pericles" (I, i, 150).
In each case, there is an immediate response from the servant,
and thus is accomplished with no apparent incongruity a quick
and dramatic transition from revery to action.

The soliloquizer occasionally summons a character other
than a servant, in plays of various nations and periods.
Shakespeare's Romeo summons the Apothecary at the end of
his soliloquy (V, i, 57) just as Marlowe's Guise summons the
Apothecary at the end of his, in "The Massacre of Paris"
(I, 2). The same device enables Eglamour of "The Two
Gentlemen of Verona " to entreat the presence of his lady (IV,
3, 3), and Thersites to hail Achilles (II, 3, 23).

The summons is not the only form of close for the intro
spective soliloquy which gives the effect of a breaking into
speech. The same function is often performed by the pre
pared entrance,26 — most conspicuously in Gloucester's " Dive,
thoughts, down to my soul; here Clarence comes" (I, i, 41).
Hamlet's "soft you now! the fair Ophelia!" (Ill, i, 88-89)
is a more graceful transitoin. " But, hush ! no more," Banquo
admonishes himself, as the sennet is sounded preceding the
royal entrance (III, i, 10).

Sometimes the soliloquizer is interrupted in such a way as
to mark the contrast between medita*tion and conversation. In
the midst of dialog, Richard the Third (IV, 2, 9^-110) and
Macbeth (I. 3. 116-147) lapse into revery, and they are
brought back tojreality onlyjby'tl^i'r rnmpanions' insistent

addresses. Rarely is the soliloquy interrupted by the speech of
one entering, as in the case of the passionate outbursts of
Troilus, which are cut short by the chattering Pandarus (III,
2, 30, 41). The interruption may be occasioned by the en
trance of a servant who is accosted by the soliloquizer in a

28 See ante, p. 55.

148

matter-of-fact way, producing an effect similar to that of the
summons. Thus Mark Antony's grandiose curse over the
corpse of Caesar is broken off, upon the entrance of Octavius'
servant, with "You serve Octavius Caesar, do you not?" (Ill,
I, 276) ,27 Again, Richard the Third's frenzied communion
with his conscience is interrupted by Ratcliffe's morning salu
tation (V, 3, 207). Most impressive is the transition caused
by the entrance of^Macbeth (I, 5, 55) : the direful monody of
Lady Macbeth is wrought to a period of climactic fervor in
the awful cry, "Hold! hold!" — whereupon, her husband ap
pearing, her majestic salutation,

" Great Glamis ! worthy Cawdor !
Greater than both, by the all-hail hereafter ! "

PIese£yj£lthej3ignitv °f tne discourse, while adjusting its mood
to the tone of conversation.

MORALIZING

The setting of the introspective soliloquy, usually suggested
by a word to a servant preceding, succeeding or during its
progress, is a significant accessory, but naturally its importance
is subservient to the content of the soliloquy itself. One prom
inent characteristic of Shakespearean meditations is their
moralizing, doubtless due in part to the preceding and con
temporary vogue of the morality play. Almost every morality,
early and late, contains monologic sermonizings. [Then, too,
the B Irtish temperament has a deep-rooted sense of right and
wrong, indicated in all of its literature.! Add to this the per
vasive influence of the Bible — especially of Ecclesiastes, the
Psalms, the Proverbs and the soliloquies of Job — and the
moralizing tendency in Shakespeare's soliloquies seems inevit
able. It is noteworthy, however, that his predecessors devote
considerably less attention to moralizing than he; and there
fore the truths which his monologists utter, as well as the
manner of the utterance may be attributed in large measure to
the dramatist's sense of proportion in ethics as well as
aesthetics.

"Cf. Julius Caesar, III, 2, 266; Measure for Measure, II, 4, 17, 30;
Macbeth, I, 5, 32.

149

The classical drama had made its contribution to the aesthe
tic aspect of moralizing. Particularly in Sophocles, the serene
statement of elemental truths as imaged in nature presages
Shakespeare's philosophizing on kindred themes. For
example, the moralizing of Ajax: "Dread things and things
most potent bow to office ; thus it is that snow-strewn winter
gives place to fruitful summer ; and thus night's weary round
makes room for day with her white steeds to kindle light ; and
the breath of dreadful winds can allow the groaning sea to
slumber ; and, like the rest, almighty Sleep looses whom he has
bound, nor holds with a perpetual grasp."28

The Senecan conception of unhappy majesty inspires a
soliloquy inserted by Kinwelmersh in " Jocasta" (I, 2, 1-18),
the idea being borrowed from Ludovico Dolce.29 The same
thought animates the moralizing of the King in the
" Sakuntala " of Kalidasa,30 as well as many Shakespearean
soliloquies. Kinwelmersh, philosophizing on the trouble
underlying the apparent splendor of court life, mentions

" The chambers huge, the goodly gorgeous beddes,
The gilted roofes embowde with curious worke " —

details somewhat suggestive of Shakespeare's "perfumed
chambers of the great" and the "canopies of costly state"
("Henry IV," Part II, III, I, 11-12).

The sad lot of the king, his inability to sleep and to enjoy the
life of the humble, is a favorite text for moralizing in the early
work of Shakespeare. Henry the Sixth envies the simple life
of the shepherd:

" Gives not the hawthorn-bush a sweeter shade
To shepherds looking on their silly sheep,
Than doth a rich embroider'd canopy
To kings that fear their subjects' treachery?"

(Part III, II, 5, 42-45.)

The thought, elaborated by Henry (u, 21-54) is converted by
Warwick to the theme of Ecclesiastes : " Why, what is pomp,

28 Tragedies, translated by R. C. Jebb, p. 197.
"Jocasta, edited by J. W. Cunliffe, p. 156.
80 Translation of Monier Williams, p. in.

150

rule, reign, but earth and dust?" (V, 2, 27), and Brackenbury
of " Richard the Third " has a similar conviction : " Princes
have but their titles for their glories" (I, 4, 78). Ceremony,
says Henry the Fifth in striking phrase, in the sole distinction
of the great (IV, I, 255-301). Like Henry the Sixth, he
laments the 'infinite heart's-ease which kings neglect and
private men enjoy.' Instead of being colored with pastoral
idealism, however, his conception of the poor man's bliss is
rather tinctured with a satiric realism, evidenced in the refer
ence to

" The wretched slave,
Who with a body fill'd and vacant mind
Gets him to rest, cramm'd with distressful bread."

The inability of majesty to sleep, remarked by Henry the Sixth
and Henry the Fifth, is the motif of that beautiful soliloquy by
Henry the Fourth :

" How many thousand of my poorest subjects
Are at this hour asleep" (Part II, III, i, 4-31).

All three deplore the inconsistency of Sleep in favoring the
loathsome bed rather than the kingly couch, but Henry the
Fourth's imagination is stirred to the noblest utterance. In the
rush of metaphor attendant upon the vision of the sleeping sea-
boy, philosophizing is forgotten until the concluding thought :

" Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown."

After 1599, the theme of unhappy majesty disappears from
the Shakespearean soliloquy, and it is succeeded in the next
few years by occasional moralizings on love. Claudio of
" Much Ado " laments that

" Friendship is constant in all other things
Save in the office and affairs of love" (II, i, 182-183).

Helena of "All's Well" ponders on the text, "Amor vincit

" The mightiest space in fortune nature brings
To join like likes and kiss like native things " (I, i, 237-8),

151

and the Countess, observing Helena's passion, remarks :

" It is the sign and seal of nature's truth,
When love's strong passion is impress'd in youth " (I, 3, 138-9).

A more sophisticated view of courtship occurs in Cressida's
well-known "Women are angels wooing" (I, 3, 308-321).

The sententious observations of Shakespeare's soliloquizers
are by no means confined to the subject of love. Indeed, the
moralizing of the middle period of the poet's productions is
concerned with a variety of ethical truisms. Friar Laurence,
musing on the powerful grace of plants, herbs and stones,
draws some interesting conclusions on the virtue of vice and
the vice of virtue (II, 3, 17-22). This kind of chiasmus
paradox, a favorite device with Elizabethans, reappears in
"Twelfth Night" when Viola comments on the folly of wis
dom and the wisdom of folly (III, i, 74-75). "Julius
Caesar " abounds in proverbs on conduct :

" Who so firm that cannot be seduc'd? " (I, 2, 316) ;

" It is the bright day that brings forth the adder and that craves

wary walking" (II, i, 15) ;
" The abuse of greatness is, when it disjoins
Remorse from power" (II, i, 18-19).

Brutus is addicted to lengthier moralizings in the famous pas
sages on Ambition (II, i, 19-27), Conspiracy (11. 77-85), and
" Between the acting of a dreadful thing and the first motion "
(11. 61-69). The Duke of "Measure for Measure" has a
meditation in the form of a gnomic poem (III, 2, 275-290),
containing two thoughts appearing as epigrams :

and

He who the sword of heaven will bear
Should be as holy as severe,"

O, what may man within him hide,
Though angel on the outward side ! "

This drama contains many moral epigrams: Isabella's on the
despot's power to sin (II, 4, 171-177), and Angelo's on the
temptation "to sin in loving virtue" (II, 2, 180-183), the
empty authority of place and form (II, 4, 12-15), ani_the_
unhappiness resulting from sin (IV, 4, 36-37), — a conviction

152

also given utterance by Lady Macbeth (III, 2, 4-7) and by
Hamlet's mother (IV, 5, 19-20). The wages of sin are more
profoundly weighed by Hamlet's uncle-father in his assertion
of divine judgment (III, 3, 57-64). His "words without
thoughts never to heaven go" (III, 3, 98) has become as
proverbial as Hamlefs "Foul deeds will rise" (I, 2, 257).
The saying, "Frailty, thy name is woman," (I, 2, 146) it is
interesting to note, has counterparts not only in Virgil's
" Varium et mutabile semper femina," but also in the Sanskrit
" Mudra-Rakshasa," when Rakshasa soliloquizes, "Women
are as unsteady as the buds that float in air."31

With "Hamlet" there appears a slight change in the tone
and form of the moralizing. The ethical attitude becomes in-
tellectualized, and the expression of the thought is only occa
sionally epigrammatic. Except for the few proverbial ex
pressions noted, the ideas of the soliloquies of " Hamlet " are
so deftly woven into the tragic theme that they cannot be set
apart as philosophizings. To be sure, Hamlet's " What a piece
of work is man!" (IV, 4, 33-39) may be separated from the
context, but nevertheless it is a spontaneous observation in
which blood and judgment are so well commingled that there is
not a trace of the epigrammatic quality.! Likewise lago's cool
generalizations on the inflammability of jealousy (III, 3, 322-
324, 326-329) are marked by a distinction alien to the pro
verbial utterance. Lear's "Take physic, pomp" (III, 4, 33-
36) discloses a feeling of fraternity characteristic of this period-
of the author's work. The same idea animates Edgar's rimed
paraphrase of the thought that misery likes company (III, 6,
109-114) and his involved philosophizing on the blessings of
"the lowest and most dejected thing of fortune" (IV, I, 3-6).
The change from the epigrammatic to the analytical is illu
strated by Edmund's ironic dissertation on the text, " The fault
is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings"
(I, 2, 128-145) —a text which Helena of "All's Well" had
thus epitomized :

" Our remedies oft in ourselves do lie,
Which we ascribe to heaven" (I, i, 231-232).

81 Theater of the Hindus, Vol. II, p. 175.

153

Naturally, proverbial expressions do not totally disappear from
the soliloquies following "Hamlet." Pericles, for example,
ponders, "One sin, I know, another doth provoke" (I, i, 137-
142) ; yet he presently philosophizes on " the passions of the
mind" which are conceived by fear and nourished by care (I,
2, 11-15). Such psychological abstractions are frequent.
Enobarbus of " Antony and Cleopatra " observes that " to be
furious is to be frighted out of fear" (III, 12, 195-196), and
Antony comes to a realization that human desires are often
regulated by their opposites (I, 2, 127-130). Imogen, the
gentle philosopher of " Cymbeline," reverts in a somewhat epi
grammatic vein to the democratic interests of " Lear," noting,
like Edgar, the blessing of the humble (I, 6, 7-9), asserting
that " falsehood is worse in kings than beggars," and that
"hardness ever of hardiness is mother" (III, 6, 13-14,
19-22).

In the latest group of plays, the intellectual attitude is deeply
tinged with misanthropy. A servant of "Timon of Athens"
moralizes on man politic, concluding with the ironic jest, " Who
cannot keep his wealth must keep his house" (III, 3, 42).31a
Flavius of the same piece comments on the wretchedness
brought by riches (IV, 2, 30-36), 31a and Timon morosely phi
losophizes on the hollowness of social distinctions (IV, 3, 3-
13), the universality of flattery (11. 13-20), and the baneful
power of gold (11. 26-41). Equally cynical are Cloten's solilo
quizing on the same evil authority of gold (II, 3, 72-78).
Coriolanus satirically rails against custom (II, 3, 124-130) and
bitterly observes the frailty of friendship (IV, 4, 12-22). The
bitterness of Wolsey's farewell in "Henry the Eighth" is
tempered with resignation, as he laments the instability of fame
(III, 2, 352-358) and the fickle favor of princes (11. 366-372) ;
but the change of mood is doubtless due to a change of author
ship, these soliloquies probably being the work of John
Fletcher.

Thus the moralizing swings a full circle, beginning with the

conventionally sympathetic attitude toward the unhappiness of

318 It should be borne in mind that these soliloquies are spurious — see E.

H. Wright's " The Authorship of Timon of Athens," pp. 42, 46 — whereas

Timon's soliloquies are undoubtedly Shakespeare's.

154

monarchs, but soon abandoning these long and ornamental
speeches for sententious and epigrammatic truisms on love and
ethics, these in turn giving way to mordintimate and intellectual
philosophizings on human conduct ancr these supplanted by the
bitterly misanthropic breedings wnich conclude with the poign
ant lament on " that poor man that hangs on princes' favors !"
How far these moods are autobiographical is a matter of specu
lation rather than investigation. The question might provoke
debates as keen as those which have raged in regard to the
sonnets. Unquestionably the moralizings show a progress in
technic as well as in thought. The conventional and the ornate
gradually give place to an intensive and spontaneous expression
of ideas.

THE WORKINGS OF CONSCIENCE

More introspective than philosophical generalization, how
ever, is the depiction of the working of conscience. This in an
old function of the soliloquy, as evidenced by " The Toy-Cart,"
when Sarvilaka ponders,

" Thus guilty conscience makes me fear, for man
Is ever frightened by his own offences."82

The translator observes that the passage might be rendered,
" Thus conscience does made cowards of us all," but, in that
case, " conscience " would not have Hamlet's meaning of
" thinking." The modern significance of " conscience " occurs
in Shakespeare, however, — doubly redoubled in Richard the
Third's terrified cry,

" My conscience hath a thousand several tongues
And every tongue brings in a several tale ;
And every tale condemns me for a villain" (V, 3, 193-195).

Here feeling outweighs thought; nevertheless it is often diffi
cult to distinguish between introspective moralizing and the
portrayal of conscience. For example, the pondering of Bru
tus on the interim " between the acting of a dreadful thing and
the first motion" (II, i, 63-69) and his meditation on the
shame of conspiracy (II, I, 77-85) are revelations not only
of his philosophical temperament but also of his own consci
ence at work.

12 Theater of the Hindus, Vol. I, p. 73.

155

On the other hand, Angelo's pondering preliminary to crime
shows a disinct consciousness of the wickedness of his designs
(II, 2, 162-187). One soliloquy is entirely devoted to the pleas
and upbraidings of conscience, ultimately conquered by law
less passion. His next meditation continues the revelation of
"the strong and swelling evil of his conception" (II, 4, 1-17).
Like Claudius, he laments that heaven has his empty words.
Finally Angelo's "This deed unshapes me quite" (IV, 4, 22, 37)
shows his realization of the futility of violating the injunctions
of conscience:

" Alack, when once our grace we have forgot,
Nothing goes right ; we would, and we would not."

The same mood characterizes Lady Macbeth's "Nought's
£rspem^ri^ia^J2,_4^) .,-raad the exclamation -"of
Hamlet's mother,

" To my sick soul, as sin's true nature is,
Each toy seems prolog to some great amiss" (IV, 5, 17-18).

The world-weariness of Macbeth in his resignation to his
empty greatness and his loveless lot (V, 3, 19-28) eloquently
bespeaks the workings of his conscience. It is a sermon in
little, psychologically and ethically sound, and so simply phrased
that it seems the welling of the heart. This master stroke
Davenant omitted in his version of the drama, — a fact indi
cating the variability of human judgment.

The contrition of the murderer, implied in Macbeth's lament,
is clearly depicted in that of the King of " Hamlet " when he
is attempting to pray (III, 3, 36-72). "O my offence is rank,
it smells to heaven" — every syllable seems racked with pain.
The poignant regret of the murderer is not a new theme in
English soliloquy — it occurs as early as the Hegge play of " Noah
and Lamech "33 — but nowhere is there a more pathetic revela
tion of contrition. Self-abnegation, conviction as to the judg
ment of heaven, despair, hope, — thus is the conscience of the
King revealed in his struggle to speak to his Master. The
murderer's repentance is also disclosed in the soliloquy of
Posthumus (V, i, 1-33), but, as befits the piece and the occa-

83 Manly, Vol. I, p. 38, 11. 190-197.

156

sion, his laments and invocations appear more rhetorical and
less sincere than the soliloquizings of Claudius.

THE DEBATE

The philosophical tone of the moralizing soliloquy become^
intimately introspective in the depiction of the workings of
conscience, but even a more profound impression of tense
thinking is sometimes produced by those dramatic meditations
which assume the form of debate.] We have already observed
a travesty of the type in Launcefot Gobbo's colloquy with the
fiend and his conscience.34 The serious presentation of argu
mentative reflection most closely approaches the original mean
ing of soliloquy. St. Augustine, who coined the word " solil
oquy," applies it to a debate between "Augustinus" and
" Ratio," and in King Alfred's preface to his translation called
" Blossom-Gatherings from St. Augustine," he thus expounds
the term : " The books are called Soliloquiorum, that is, of his
mind's musing and doubting; how his Reason answered his
Mind, when the mind doubted about anything, or wished to
know anything which it clearly could not understand before."

Whether or not to commit murder is the chief subject on
which the argumentative soliloquizer ponders in Shakespeare,
— a theme doubtless due to the soliloquies of contemporary
revenge plays. In this respect Shakespeare was again in agree
ment with his fellow-dramatists. Horestes ponders,

" Shall I revenged be

Of good Kinge Agamemnon's death, ye goddes declare to me !
Or shall I let the adulterous dame styll wallow in her sin ? "M

In the opening speech by the protagonist of " Hoffman," the
soliloquizer, like Hamlet, laments his "tardy aim to do an act
which justice and a father's death excite." The soliloquizing
Promos of " Promos and Cassandra " debates pro and con the
question, " Shall Andrugio live ?" deciding in the negative.36

The theme of Hamlet's broodings is foreshadowed in Shake
speare as well as in his predecessors. The cogitation of Brutus

84 See ante, p. 128.

38 Quellen, edited by A. Brandl, p. 499.

38 Six Old Plays, edited by G. Stevens, Vol. I, p. 40.

157

on the assassination of Caesar (II, i) and Angelo's pondering
on killing Isabella's brother (II, 2, 175) are potentially debates
on murder, although the real issue is obscured by lofty
patriotism in the one case and by a consuming passion in the
other. Criticism has recognized Hamlet's tendency toward
excessive reflection, but it has not stressed the fact that the
underlying motive of nearly all of his meditations is the ques
tioning of his intention to kill Claudius. Two soliloquies
bring the issue to head. One (III, 3, 73-96) begins with the
determination, "now I'll do't," but pauses to debate the effi
cacy of revenge at such a moment, the thought becoming
involved in the absurdities of medieval theology and concluding
with a postponement of the act. The other soliloquy (IV, 4,
32-66) revives the question of vengeance. His analyses of his
thoughts and feelings, his reasoning on the reasons which
retard and spur his dull revenge, although marshalled as an
invincible argument arraigning his vacillation, nevertheless
portray the culmination of a tremendous internal conflict.
^ Macbeth hasjwo soliloqin'e,* in wVnVV| hejxmders murder.
he weighs the consequences of his deed

m fmTlife, enumerating the reasons for refraining, and feebly
opposing these glowing arguments with "only vaulting ambi
tion." The ^thersoliloquy (HI, I, 48-72) is not clearly
argumentative, nor is the purpose of murder frankly stated
until the ensuing dialog; yet the ideas form a chain of thought
pointing toward the killing of Banquo. Both reveries, couched
in resplendent diction and daring metaphor, lay bare the
mental processes of the villain, drunk with sentimental fear,
pity and egoism. The figure of

" Pity like a naked new-born babe
Striding the blast "

is admirably characterized by Mr. Story37 as " the product of
an unrestrained imagination which exhausts itself in the
utterance."

Even Hamlet's "To be or not to be" (III, I, 56-88), plain
as is the implication of the opening phrase, has been inter-

" Excursions in Art and Letters, by W. W. Story, p. 256.

158

preted by the practical common sense of Dr. Johnson and the
astute scholarship of Professor Lewis as another illustration
of the contemplation of murder : " Hamlet is thinking not of
committing suicide but of actively pursuing his revenge."38
Professor Lewis, who ingeniously champions the theory,
admits, however, that " unless we are misled by printers'
omissions, the Hamlet of the First Quarto is certainly medi
tating suicide." The transposition of the soliloquy39 and the
alterations of the text do not appear to warrant the complete
change of meaning and therefore we shall proceed on the
assumption, ratified by the consensus of opinion of three cen
turies, that "To be or not to be" debates the question of
self-slaughter.

The motive is not a new one. The Sanskrit drama, which
affords precedents for practically all types of Shakespearean
soliloquies, is no exception in this case, as both the "Uttara-
Rama-Charitra "40 and the " Mudra-Rakshasa "40 contain solil
oquizers who contemplate suicide and conclude not to take the
step. A crude predecessor of Hamlet's meditation is found in
Hieronimo's soliloquizing in "The Spanish Tragedy":

" This way, or that way ? soft and faire, not so !
For if I hang or kill myselfe, lets know
Who will revenge Horatios murther then !
No, no, fie, no! pardon me, ile none of that, — " (III, 12).

and he flings away his dagger and halter.

Hamlet's brooding lacks such objective illumination. Indeed
the fact that a totally different interpretation of the theme has
been maintained with an appearance of plausibility is in itself
significant of its subjectivity, and so is the evidence that the
meaning of nearly every line has been vigorously contested.41
To complete the paradox, it is only necessary to observe that
the phrasing is simple throughout, the thought sequential and
the general import transparently clear. Wherefore, then, the
difficulty in specific interpretation ?

88 Charlton M. Lewis, The Genesis of Hamlet, p. 100 ff.

89 See ante, p. 35.

40 Theater of the Hindus, Vol. I, p. 342 ; Vol. II, p. 234.
"Furness Variorum Edition of Hamlet, Vol. I, pp. 204-215.

159

The soliloquy is profoundly introspeetiverthe^form o
adding intensity to the musing. The-question is ter.sg^ut (1.
56) and graphically expanded (57-60) ; tjien th

the negative makes a movmgjjlejj^jqr jion-existence (60-64);
the rest of the colloquy is devoted to the reply7 oflhe affirma
tive, who begins tentatively, apparently granting his opponent's
point, but proceeds with increasing conviction to develop a line
of reasoning showing, not why man should be, but why he is ;
the conclusion (84-88) terminates the argument of the affirma
tive and apparently indicates the decision of the judge.

Albeit the soliloquy lends itself to analysis in terms of argu
mentation, its expression is tinged with an elusive quality giv
ing the impression of a melancholy and pensive mood. The
clarity is of thought rather than of articulate speech. Feelings
and ideas are indelibly transmitted, but, as to their precise
meaning, doctors disagree. The impression of thoughts with
out words was destroyed for Charles Lamb by hearing the solil
oquy " spouted," " handled and pawed about by declamatory
boys and men."42 The commentator Bailey was so imbued
with the introspective attitude of the soliloquizer that he
objected to Hamlet's word/' say" (1. 61) as an interruption to
the train of thought;43 and even the hard-headed Dr. Johnson
comprehended this soliloquy as a conventional symbol for
revealing mental processes : " This celebrated soliloquy, burst
ing from a man distracted with contrariety of desire, and over
whelmed with the magnitude of his own purposes, is connected
rather in the speaker's mind than on his tongue."44 Herein is
the genius of the speech; so worded that it appears the out
pouring of a tortured spirit, it quickens imagination and
sympathy and awakens a response of mind and soul.

THE REVELATION OF INSANITY

The line separating introspection from insanity is difficult to
determine, as evidenced by the voluminous controversy on

42 The Works of Charles and Mary Lamb, edited by E. V. Lucas, Vol. I,
p. 199.

48 Furness Variorum Hamlet, Vol. I, p. 209.
** Furness Variorum Hamlet, Vol. I, p. 204.

160

Hamlet's madness. It is unnecessary to revive the question
other than to state the modern attitude on the subject, suc
cinctly set forth by Professor Tolman : " I believe that the
debate on this topic concerns largely the use of terms, the defi
nition of madness ; and that it often indicates no fundamental
difference between the opposing sides. Hamlet is sane enough
to be the responsible hero of a great tragedy. He is not sane
enough to be pronounced rational by the experts : few are."45

If there is any point of the tragedy at which Hamlet loses
control of his faculties, it is after the revelations made by the
ghost. In the ensuing soliloquy (I, 5, 92-112) and dialog,
Hamlet's wild and whirling words indicate a reaction after
tense strain which might be diagnosed as temporary disturb
ance of the mental faculties. This soliloquy is used by critics
as evidence of sanity and insanity.46 — a fact which suggests
that the speaker is on the verge of an emotional collapse.

" O all you host of heaven ! O earth ! What else ?
And shall I couple hell ? "—

such impotent ragings show his distraction, but with " O, fie !
Hold, my heart!" he regains a measure of self-control, which,
by focusing his attention on the parting injunction of the
ghost (11. 95, 97, in), he retains to the end of the speech.

The soliloquy is often used in Elizabethan drama to suggest
the border between sanity and insanity. The ragings of the
vengeful Hieronimo in "The Spanish Tragedy" occasionally
break the bonds of reason. In Greene's "Orlando Furioso,"
the monolog, "Woods, trees, leaves; leaves, trees, woods,"47
reveals the hero's madness, while two soliloquies48 indicate his
dawning reason, as he discourses on his dreams and forthwith
recovers from his lunacy. So Lear's " Blow, winds, and crack
your cheeks!" (Ill, 2, 1-9, 14-25) depicts such turbulent emo
tion that it may be regarded as the first sign of insanity,

46 The Views about Hamlet, by Albert H. Tolman, p. 14.

"Furness Variorum Hamlet, Vol. I, p. 107 (Hunter); Vol. II, pp. 197
(Boswell), 199 (Farren), 200, 208 (Dr. Bucknell), 216 (Dr. Kellogg), 224
(Dr. Stearns), 225 (Arthur Meadows), 230 (G. H. Lewes).

41 Plays and Poems of Robert Greene, edited by J. C. Collins Vol. I, p. 245.

48 U.S., p. 256.

161

although his next soliloquy (III, 4, 26-36) is thoroughly
rational.

A monolog must contain an element of consciousness if it is
to be considered a soliloquy. Accordingly the ravings of
Ophelia (IV, 5) and the somniloquv of Lady Macbeth (V, i)
do not come within the jurisdiction of this discussion. There
is a form of monolog, however, the distinguishing feature of
which is the fact that the speaker, for the moment, is uncon
scious of the presence of others on the stage. This soliloquy
we may term the " trance."

THE TRANCE

The trance is so called because the soliloquizer appears en
tranced by his meditations and totally oblivion?

near him. At the same time, it is evident that the soliloquizer
is keenly alive to his own thoughts, — a state of affairs not
applicable to the monologs of Ophelia (IV, 5) and Lady Mac-
beth (V, i). The trance often occurs in Greek tragedy when
the soliloquizer tells his tale to the air, unconscious of the
proximity of attendant or chorus. There are two notable
instances of the device in the drama immediately preceding
Shakespeare : one at the close of Peele's " David and Bethsabe,"
where David, oblivious to his wife and his friends and their
train, communes with the spirit of his beloved Absolon;49
the other is the exquisitely poignant, " Black is the beauty of
the brightest day," uttered by Tamburlaine in the presence of
his sick wife, their three sons, three kings and three physicians

(Part II, 11,4).

Macbeth's reverv on the predictions of the weird sisters,
forgetful of the presence of Banquo. Ross and Angus (I, 3,
116-117, 127-129, 143-144, 146-147) is a slightly different
kind of trance, since the isolation, no less complete than that of
David and of Tamburlaine, is produced by a thoughtful rather
thajr^ajgassj^nate^jniiail-- Richard the Third's meditation, dis
regarding the importunities of Buckingham (IV, 2, 98-104,
106-110) does not indicate such complete absorption, but it
may be styled a trance. Lear's ravings just noted (III, 2)

49 Manly, Vol. II, p. 486, 11. 257-276.
12

162

afford an excellent illustration of the trance. As pointed out
by Delius, " the company of the Fool, with whom he enters on
the heath, is not to be considered as company, since Lear him
self takes no notice of him : Lear is alone and feels himself
the more so, abandoned to the storm and violence of the unre
strained elements, which he dares to outbid with the storm and
violence of his soul."50

There are many instances in Shakespeare and his contem
poraries of momentary trances in the midst of dialog, — for ex
ample, Imogen's apostrophe to Posthumus, interrupting her
conversation with Pisanio (III, 4, 90-98). Trances over the
dead are likewise numerous: Cleopatra's frenzied appeal to
Antony (IV, 15, 63-68), Othello's passionate adieu to Desde-
mona (V, 2, 358-359), and Horatio's tender farewell to Hamlet
(V, 2, 370-371) are all soliloquies uttered in the midst of a
crowd. But these outbursts belong to the realm of the pas
sions rather than of thought.

DEPICTION OF THE PASSIONS

In the soliloquy, as in every human document, there is a nat
ural intermingling of thought and feeling, and therefore the
segregation of thought and passion is an arbitrary arrangement
for convenience of discussion. Grief, love, jealousy, revenge,
hate and fear, — these six passions conspicuously animate the
Shakespearean soliloquy, and these we shall briefly note.

GRIEF

Grief is the motive force of the most ancient soliloquies of
tragedy. Aeschylus' Prometheus, bound to the rocks, bewails
his plight, and, in general, lamentation is the usual mode of
expression in the soliloquies of the "tragic triad of immortal
fames." Seneca preserves the tradition and the early Eliza
bethans follow his lead. Claudia of " Gismond of Salerne"
is assigned a soliloquy (III, 2, 1-50) which is a literary exer
cise in lamentation, borrowed from snatches of Seneca's

wNicolaus Delius, " Uber den Monolog in Shakespeare's Dramen,"
Shakespeare Jahrbuch, Vol. XVI, p. 16.

163

" Phaedra,"51 and opened and concluded with favorite expres
sions of Chaucer's. Less elaboration and more sincerity char
acterizes some of the soliloquies in the beginnings of English
drama, — for example, the lamentation of Mary Magdalene at
the tomb, which opens the Coventry play of " Christ appearing
to Mary," and the soliloquies with which Everyman mourns
the departure of his companions.

A more personal note of suffering is sounded in the Shake
spearean lamentation. Hamlet's " O, that this too too solid
flesh would melt" (I, 2, 129-159) seems the quintessence of
world-weariness, while equally heart-felt is Ophelia's gentle
plaint, "O, what a noble mind is here o'er-thrown ! " (III, i,
158-169). More sentimental and ornamental is the dying
speech of Enobarbus, who lays bare his heart

" Which, being dried with grief, will break to powder,
And finish all foul thoughts" (IV, 9, 17-18).

Death soliloquies and lamentations over the dead52 depict
grief in varying degrees of intensity. Wolsey's farewells to
his greatness (III, 2, 222-227, 35°-372) reveal sorrow tem
pered by resignation.

LOVE

A frequent form of the lament is the lover's complaint,
charmingly expressed in the " Sakuntala " of Kalidasa,53 and
poignantly uttered by Rostand's Cyrano underneath the bal
cony (III, 9). In the early eighteenth century, the Earl of
Mulgrave bewailed the fact that

" Our lovers, talking to themselves, for want
Of friends, make all the Pit their Confidant."54

Every age attests the popularity of this type of soliloquy, but
particularly in the renaissance it flowers in tragedy, comedy,
romance, sonnet and novella. Accordingly the extraordinary
dexterity, variety, warmth and color of the soliloquies of

81 J. W. Cunliffe, " Gismond of Salerne," Pub. of Mod. Lang. As., New
Series, Vol. XIV, No. 2, p. 452.
62 See ante, p. 76.

53 Translation of Monier Williams, pp. 55, 73-

54 An Essay on Poetry, London, 1717, p. 308.

164

Shakespearean lovers is explicable in part as a culmination of
one aspect of the renaissance movement in England.

The caprice of Protean love is depicted in " The Two Gen
tlemen of Verona" (II, 4, i9l~2I4; H, 6, 1-26). Valentine's
"And why not death rather than living torment?" (Ill, I, 170-
187) illustrates the juggling of phrase and fancy popular in
the contemporary plaint of the love-sick swain /while his "O
thou that dost inhabit in my breast" (V, 4, 7-12) has the con
ventional forest setting. Likewise the sonneteering lovers of
" Love's Labor's Lost " (IV, 3) have the park as a background,
and Orlando hangs his verses on the trees and carves his sweet
heart's name in the bark (III, 2, i-io).

Aaron's passion mounts with the rising sun (II, i, 1-24) and
Romeo's imagination is set aflame with the fancy that Juliet
is the sun (II, 2, 2-25). Then he likens her to "a winged
messenger of heayjen^' (II, 2, 26-32), bewails the absence of
her light (11.^156-15$) and wishes her a lover-like "Good
night" (11. 187-188)! Troilus, musing, also pictures his love
by aid of resplendent imagery: "Her bed is India; there she
lies, a pearl" (I, i, 103-107), and his passion takes fire in
the soliloquies, "I am giddy; expectation whirls me round"
(III, 2, 19-30) and "Even such a passion doth embrace my
bosom" (III, 2, 37-41). Antony's passion for Cleopatra
transcends the death which momentarily separates them :

" Where souls do couch on flowers, we'll hand in hand,
And with our sprightly port make the ghosts gaze " (IV, 14, 51-2).

Shakespeare's heroines are not less reticent about admitting
their love in soliloquy. Julia, fingering the scraps of the letter
from Proteus, discloses her passion for him (I, 2, 104-129).
The same warmth of young affection is depicted in Juliet's
anxiety over the delay of the Nurse (II, 5, 1-17), while her
" Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds" (111,2, 1-31) bespeaks
in poetic symbols a flaming ardor for her mate. "Here we
find," observes Delius, "suggestions which could be fittingly
made only in soliloquy, — suggestions which would scarcely have
been in place in conversation with the Nurse or with Romeo."55

55Nicolaus Delius, Uber den Monolog in Shakespeare's Dramen, Vol.
XVI, p. 5.

165

Thus is evidenced another use of the soliloquy, — the frank
portrayal of a woman's love for a man, a revelation which
might seem immodest in dialog, but one nevertheless necessary
to the exposition. Thus Beatrice (III, I, 107-116), Olivia (I,
5, 308-317), Cressida (I, 2, 308-321) and Helena of "All's
Well" (I, i, 93-109) reveal their love.

JEALOUSY

Love is tinged with jealousy in the soliloquies of Julia (IV,
4, 184,210) and of Helena of "A Midsummer-Night's Dream"
(I, i, 226-251). The soliloquies which actually depict the
ravages of jealousy, however, are those of husbands maddened
by groundless suspicions of their wives, — a theme which Shake
speare manipulates for comic, tragic, and romantic effects.
"Who says this is improvident jealousy?" cries Ford (II, 2,
301), and the laughter of the audience responds to his ragings.56
The motive is handled with tragic sincerity in the broodings of
Othello, one soliloquy suggesting the beginnings of his jealous
fancy (III, 3, 260-277) and another, the famous "It is the
cause, it is the cause, my soul" (V, 2, 1-22) marking the cul
mination of the passion with the sorrowful determination to
murder the beloved. Here again, as Delius57 points out, it is
only by means of soliloquy that Othello's extenuation is, in a
measure, effected. Very different is the blind fury of Antony
when he believes Cleopatra in league with Caesar (IV, 12,
39-49) ; and the frenzy of Posthumus manifests itself with
romantic abandon in railings against womankind, pierced with
the cry, "Vengeance! vengeance!" (II, 5, 1-35).

REVENGE

In the same romantic key, love, hatred and revenge are the
mixed motives of Cloten's soliloquy (III, 5, 70-80). Revenge
is a favorite theme in Senecan and Elizabethan tragedy.58
Hieronimo of " The Spanish Tragedy," for example, has seven
soliloquies in which he usually declares vengeance with violent

56 See ante, p. 117.

67 U. s., p. 15.

68 See ante, pp. 6, n.

166

insistence, never questioning his right to kill the object of his
hatred. We have observed Hamlet's ponderings on the sub
ject. Occasionally he thirsts for vengeance with the theatrical
fervor of his predecessors. There is no vacillation in the solil
oquy in which he swears never to forget the ghost's injunction
(I, 5, 92-1 12) . " O, Vengeance ! " he cries at another moment
of intense feeling (II, 2, 610), and his last words in soliloquy
are:

" O, from this time forth,
My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth! " (IV, 4, 65-66).

HATRED

The histrionic curse of Antony over the body of Caesar (III,
i, 258-275) implies vengeance, but the prophetic tone out
weighs the personal. Hatred rather than revenge is the domi
nant note,- — by no means a new one in monologic declamation.
The rhetorical extravagances of Senecan soliloquizers were
preceded in England by the ragings of Herod in the pageant
wagon and in the street also :

" I rent ! I rave ! and now run I wode !
A that these velen trayturs hath mard this my mode ! "M

Violent feeling and grandiloquent expression reach a culmina
tion in Antony's theatrical imprecation. Equally vehement are
two curses in "Timon" hurled at the character just departed
(III, i, 54-66; III, 5, 104-117). Timon's long and bitter curse
on Athens and its inhabitants (IV, i, 1-41) is a study in the
malignity of hatred, and so, in a brief form, is Caliban's spite
ful cursing of Prospero (II, 2, 1-3).

With no less rhetorical flourish but with greater intensity,
hatred is depicted in the soliloquy of the villain. We have
already examined the villain's soliloquy as a means of exposi
tion;60 as a revelation of passion it is equally suggestive.
Gloucester's malignity directs itself toward anyone who chances
to be in the path of his ambition : " Clarence, thy turn is next,
and then the rest," he gleefully observes in " The Third Part
of Henry the Sixth " (V, 7, 90). Not so much personal spleen,

59 Manly, Vol. I, p. 147.

60 See ante, p. 60.

167

however, as diabolical joy in the game enlivens his utterance.
Animated by an ambition similar to Gloucester's, Lady Mac-
beth's broodings are less specific as to the object of her machi
nations, and her sinister mood is far removed from his fiendish
levity. .Fired by a single vicious passion which expresses itself
jn_Jund_a£c^sjtrophes, her soliloquies (I, 5, 1-31, 39-55) are
the incantations of Seneca's Medea ( IV, 2 ) .

Of all Shakespeare's soliloquizing villains, however, none is
more downright in his expression of personal hatred nor more
convincing in the disclosure of his passion than lago. The
brevity, simplicity and candor of his plottings add touches of
realism. Thought is suggested — " How, how ? — Let's see. . . .
It is engendered" (I, 3, 400, 409) ; but back of the cogitation
is the malign impulse — " I hate the Moor" (1,3,392). Again,
a mingling of thought and passion is suggested by the asser
tion, "Tis here, but yet confus'd" (II, i, 319). lago's solilo
quies indicate a climactic development of passion. Beginning
with a clear statement of his hatred and the reasons therefor,
together with a confused purpose to hatch evil, presently his
scheming becomes articulate, while his imagination is stirred
by the weaving of " the net that shall enmesh them all " (II, 3,
342-368). Finally, intoxicated by the artistic perfection of
his poisonous designs, he reveals his exultation in burning
imagery which culminates, with the approach of the object of
his hatred, in that direful prophecy,

" Not poppy, nor mandragora,
Nor all the drowsy syrups of the world
Shall ever medicine thee to that sweet sleep
Which thou ow'dst yesterday" (III, 3, 330-333)-

FEAR

Equally picturesque and vivid is the portrayal of fear in the
Shakespearean soliloquy. Richard the Third, awakening from
his dream and for the first time awake to his conscience, thus
epitomizes his terrified mood :

" The lights burn blue. It is now dead midnight.
Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh " (V, 3, 180-1).

168

Likewise Juliet's phial soliloquy opens with the revelation :

" I have a faint cold fear thrills through my veins,
That almost freezes up the heat of life " (IV, 3, 15-16).

Both soliloquies are surcharged with terror, every image con
jured up adding fresh horror to the mental state. A milder
aspect of fear is depicted in the premonitions of Portia
("Julius Caesar," II, 4, 39-46) and of Antony ("Antony and
Cleopatra," II, 3, 33-40). Fear^JnJts sinister fascination, is
symbolized in the fatal vision of the dagger which confronts
v/Macbeth (II, 1, 33, 49) . The apparition is doubtless intended as
an hallucination "proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain,"
but Macbeth's dread is a real emotion. The knocking at the
gate and the sight of blood converts his dread into fright (II,
2, 57-63). To be sure, the fright is not unmixed with other
feelings. The question,

" Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand ? "

has a large significance quite apart from the momentary im
pulse of fear.

Thus even our brief study of the Shakespearean soliloquy's
depiction of the passions, — grief, love, jealousy, revenge, hatred
and fear, together with their various combinations and modifi
cations, — brings home the truth of Professor Curry's tribute:
" Shakespeare's soliloquies ... are objective embodiments in
words of feelings and moods of which the speaker himself is
only partly conscious. This is the very climax of literature, —
to word what no individual ever words."61

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SHAKESPEAREAN SOLILOQUY

The Shakespearean soliloquy is its own justification. ^True,

.as ajneans of exposition and as an accompaniment of the

action, the^ soliloquy js now virtually_-obsolete. . Yet we would

not dispense with it in these capacities, as manipulated by the

master. The depiction of vjllainy in the soliloquies of Richard

the Third, lago, Ma^beJ:hjm^ may not be in

strict accordance with recent studies in criminology, nor with

w S. S. Curry, Browning and the Dramatic Monolog, Boston, 1908, p. 56.

169

the present methods of play-making, but each monolog is a
superb artistic achievement which stands the test of time^
Again, according to the theatrical fashion of Jg^day. a char
acter alone is almost never permitted to fall asleep, commit
suicide or die ; but these acts are often momentously dramatic,
and Shakespeare, by means of accompanying soliloquies, has
raised them to the realm of high poetic seriousness. Further, }
our drop-curtain removes the requirement for entrance and exit
speeches, but the little soliloquies introducing, linking and clos
ing the episodes of Shakespearean tragedy give a lyric finish
to the scenes impossible in modern plays. The overheard solil-
oquy, to be sure, is out of the question nowadays, but the very
absurdity of the convention serves to add merriment to Shake
speare's delightful fooling.

Not all of Shakespeare's comic monologs are indispensable,
but the few by the vulgar buffoon are far outbalanced by the
many which portray the laughable aspects of human nature.
The ego of the soliloquizer is laid bare for the delectation of
the audience, and hence those inimitable studies in self-opin
ionated assurance, the soliloquies of Benedick and Falstaff.

In tragedy as in comedy some of the most notable Shake
spearean characters are depicted by means of the soliloquy.
The pure passion of youth, exuberantly phrased in the abun
dant imagery of nature, is disclosed in the solitary musings of
the immortal lovers, Romeo and Juliet. Through the medium
of soliloquy we are made to fff] wit^ Marhe|Vi frig tpmp^tinnr
his' ambition, his fearsome resolve, and finally hjs miserable
recognition of Nemesis. Brutus might appear a murderer and
Hamlet a madman, were it not for the soliloquies which reveal
their noble natures wrenched by their conceptions of duty.
Hamlet without soliloquy would be Hamlet left out. His habit
of thinking too precisely on the event constitutes the real
tragedy. Likewise the contrition of the criminal Claudius and
the humility of the despotic Lear — parables unsurpassed in the
history of the drama — are made intelligible by aid of soliloquy.
These instances serve to illustrate the indebtedness of dramatic
literature to the Shakespearean soliloquy, and, indeed, of
Shakespeare to the convention of the soliloquy which was
ready at his hand.

INDEX

The Index contains the titles of works and the names of authors men
tioned in the text or footnotes of the foregoing treatise.

Abhandlung vom Trauerspiele, i8n. Aristophanes, i, 7, 48, 56, 66, 75,

Acharnians, 7, 48n, 66, 85.
Adelphi, 49.

Aeschylus, 5, 6, 48, 134, 136, 139,
162.

Agamemnon, 6, 133, 136.

AJ ax, 6, 80, 149.

Albumasar, in.

Alcestis, 6, 48n.

Alfonso, 92n.

Alfred, King, 156.

Alladine and Palomedes, 53.

Allen, P. S., io2n.

All Fools, 1 1 6.

All for Love, 94.

All's Well that Ends Well, 25, 43n,
64, 65, 68, 84n, 87, 93, 94, 107,
119, i29n, 137, 150, 152, 165.

Alphonsus, 133.

Aminta, 95.

Amour Medicin, L', 95n.

Amphitryon, 49, 56, 102.

Anachronism in Shakespeare Cri
ticism, 62.

Andria, 119.

Andromache, 48n.

Andromede, 15.

Antonio and Mellida, 11-12, 142.

Antonio's Revenge, 60.

Antony, 63.

Antony and Cleopatra, 25, 30, 44, 76,
77, 94, 137, 138, 144, 146, 153,
162, 163, 164, 165, 168.

Appius and Virginia, 10, 115.

Appolonius the Prince of Tyr, 38.

Archer, William, 16, 18.

Arden of Feversham, 67, 142.

83, 85, 103, 114.
Arms and the Man, 75.
Art of Playwrighting, The, 3n.
Arte nuevo de hasar comedias en

este tiempo, 87.
As You Like It, 25, 26, 43, 84, i2in,

146.

Attic Theatre, The, in, 2n.
Aubignac, F. H. Abbe d', 18, 69, 70,

72, 99-

Augustine, St., 2, 156.
Aulularia, 94, 104.
Authorship of Timon of Athens,

The, iS3n.
Avare, U, 96, 104.

Bacchides, 49, 86n, 89, 114, 117.

Bailey, Sir W. H., 159.

Baillie, Joanna, 19, 96, 135.

Bale, Bishop, 54.

Banished Wife's Complaint, The, 5.

Bates, E. S., 135.

Battle of Alcazar, The, 78.

Beaumont, Francis, 52, 57, 76, 79,
83, 85, 89, 123.

Beddoes, T. L., 53, 78.

Beitrage zur Litteratur, io2n.

Beowulf, 5, 77n.

Bernstein, H., 86.

Bestrafte Brudermord, Der, 33, 36.

Bible, The, 148.

Bible as Literature, The, 37n.

Blossom-Gatherings from St. Augus
tine, 156.

Boccaccio, 67, 74.

Boileau-Despreaux, Nicholas, 83n.

Boisteau, P., 40.

170

171

Bradley, A. C, 8gn, 99, 107, no.

Brandes, Georg, 144.

Brandl, A., 50.

Bride's Tragedy, The, 79*1.

Brooke, Arthur, 39, 40.

Browning, Robert, 53, 134.

Browning and the Dramatic Mono~

log, i68n.

Burgeois gentilhomme , Le, 16.
Byron, Lord, 52, 53, 73.

Cabinet Minister, The, 68, 80, 83.
Cailhava d'Estendoux, J. F. de, 16,

19, 83.

Caius Gracchus, 75.
Calderon, 68, 124, 133, 135.
Calisto and Melibaea, 104.
Cambises, 10, 53, 78, 91, 104, 106,

123, 134-

Campbell, Lewis, 62.
Captivi, 48n, 49, 54, 59.
Capell, Edward, 112.
Cardanus, G., 37.
Castle Spectre, The, 63.
Cenci, The, 76, 96, 135.
Chambers, E. K., 102.
Chanson de Roland, 77n.
Chapman, George, 37, 116, 120.
Chaucer, Geoffrey, 37, 163.
Chester Plays, son.
Chettle, Henry, 52.
Christ appearing to Mary, 50, 163.
Clarke, C. C., 112.
Cleopatra, 52.
Cloetta, W., 102.
Clouds, The, 7, 48n, 75, 85.
Coleridge, S. T., 19, 53, 112, 140.
Collier, J. P., 13.
Comedie moyen age et renaissance,

La, iO3n.
Comedy of Errors, The, 9, 24, 41, 55,

64, 71.

Concerning the Soliloquy, I7n, 98n.
Conflict of Conscience, The, 60.
Congreve, William, 18, 71, 72.
Contention between Liberality and

Prodigality, 120.

Cook, A. S., 37.

Coriolanus, 24, 25, 30, 44, 55, 66,

88, 153.

Corneille, Pierre, 15-16.
Creation and Fall, The, 74.
Creizenach, Wilhelm, i7n, loan,

Critic, The, 77, 114.

Cunliffe, J. W., 4gn, 50, 67n, I39n,

i4in, i63n.
Curfew, The, 68.
Curry, S. S., 168.
Cyclops, 48n.
Cymbeline, 24, 25, 26, 38, 44, 45, 53,

55, 57, 59, 62, 65, 68, 71, 74, 75,

77, 89, 107, 137, 138, 141, 153,

155, 162, 165.
Cyrano de Bergerac, 66, 163.

Damon and Pythias, 10, 86, 95, 115,

120.

Daniel, Samuel, 52.
Davenant, Sir Wm., 155.
David and Bethsabe, 161.
Death of Robert Earl of Huntington,

The, 6 1.

Death's Jest Book, 79n.
Decameron, 38.
Dekker, Thomas, 52, 123.
De I' art de la come die, i6n, ign, 83.
Delius, Nicolaus, 19, 162, 164, 165.
Deor, Song of, 5.
Depit amour eux, Le, 124.
DeQuincey, Thomas, in.
Development of the Drama, The,

2on.

Dibdin, Thomas, 83.
Diderot, Denis, 18.
Dido, i2n, 51.
Disobedient Child, The, 104.
Doctor Faustus, 12, 51, 105, 146.
Dolce, Ludovico, 51, 149.
Doll's House, A, 90.
Don Juan, 16.
Double-Dealer, The, 18, 72.
Dowden, Edward, 58.
Dramatic Convention with Special

172

Reference to the Soliloquy, an,

i6n.
Dramatische Monolog in der Poetik

des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, Der,

i/n, San.
Dryden, John, 52, 57, 69, 70, 72, 94,

120.

Dumas, Alexandra, pere, 63.
Dusel, Friedrich, i;n, 8an, 84n.

Ecclesiastes, 148, 149.
Ecclesiasusae, 7, 48, 114.
£cole des maris, L', 8sn.
Edwards, Richard, 86.
Edward the Second, 51, 67, 76.
Eighteenth Century Essays on

Shakespeare, i25n.
Einleitung in die schdnen Wissen-

schaften, 1 7n.
Electro, 6, 48n.
Endimion, 75, 76.
English Chronicle Play, The, 4211.
English Dramatists of To-day, i6n,

i8n.

Englishmen for my Money, 106.
Essay of Dramatic Poesy, 69.
Essay on Poetry, i7n, 163.
Essay on the Dramatic Character of

Sir John Falstaff, 124.
Ztourdi, L', 86.
Etymological Dictionary, 2n.
Eumenides, 6, 48, 136.
Eunuch, The, 69, in.
Euripides, 5, 6, 7, 48, 91, 92, 133,

134, 139.
Evadne, 90.
Everyman, 8, 141, 163.
Everyman in His Humor, 120.
Evolution of Dramatic Technic, The,

i6n.
Excursions in Art and Letters, sgn,

Fair Maid of the Exchange, The,

113.
Faithful Shepherdess, The, 95.

Famous Victories of Henry the

Fifth, The, 29, 32.
Farmer, Richard, 115.
Faust, 52.

Femmes Savantes, Les, 16.
First Part of Jeronimo, The, n.
First Part of Selimus, The, 142, 145.
First Part of the Contention, The,

27, 28, 32.

Fischer, Rudolf, i2n.
Fletcher, John, 46, 52, 57, 76, 79.

83, 85, 89, 95, 123.
Flight of Egypt, The, isgn.
Fortunes of Nigel, The, 19, 2on.
Fourberies de Scapin, Les, 9Sn.
Foure PP, The, 54.
Franc-archer de Bagnolet, Le, 103,

118.

Freytag, Gustav, 19, 81.
Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, 76,

105.

Fuller. H. deW., 4on.
Fuller, Thomas, 124.

Gallathea, 56, 105.

Gammer Gurton, 9, 83, 91, 105.

Genesis of Hamlet, The, 158.

Gervinus, G. G., 122.

Geschichte des Neueren Dramas,

i7n.
Gismond of Salerne, 9, 50, 67, 80,

85, 139, 146, 162.
Goethe, 52.
Golding, A., 37, 115.
Good Natured Man, The, 91.
Gorboduc, 9, 141.
Gottsched, J. C, 8sn.
Gower, John, 38.
Greene, Robert, 51, 61, 76, 105, 133,

142, 160.
Guarini, G. B., 95.

Haigh, A. E., in.

Halle, E., 27, 28.

Hamlet, 4, 8, 14, 19, 21, 4$, 26,
37, 43, 44, 63, 64, 65, 71, 85, 86,
*8»n, 112, 134, 136, 138, 139, 140,

I, 155,

173

143, 145, 147, 152, 154, 155, 156,

I57» 158—160, 161, 162, 163, 166.
Hamlet and Contemporary Revenge

Plays, i in, 3311.
Hamme, Sir Thomas 108.
Hear* of Midlothian, The, 83.
Heautontimorumenos, 86n.
Heiberg, J. L., 61.
Helena, 6, 4811.

Henderson, Archibald, 16, 17, 69.
Hennequin, Alfred, 3, 4.
Henry /^ Par* /, 25, 42^ 58, 68,

71, 88n, 89, 93, 123-128, 137.
Henry IV, Part II, 21, 25, 29, 42,

84, io6n, 109, 126-127, 138, 149,
-. 150.

\ Henry V, 25, 29, 42, 64, 84, 109,
L J37, 138, 140, 150.
Henry VI, Part I, 24, 27, 41, 64, 89.
Henry VI, Part II, 24, 27, 63, 76,

88n, 91, 140, 144.
Henry VI, Part III, 24, 26, 28, 56,

61, 66, 77, 82, 90, 92, 94, 149. 166.
Henry VIII, 25, 27n, 45, 153, 163.
Heracleidae, 48n.
Heraclius, 15.
Heraud, J. A., 112.
Hercules Furens, 6.
Hercules Oetaeus, 49.
Hernani, 59.
Hesiod, 136.
Hey wood, Jasper, 136.
Heywood, John, 9, 51, 54, 116, 132.
Hey wood, Thomas, 80, 107.
Hij a del aire, La, 124.
History of English Dramatic Poetry,

i3n.

Hoffman, 156.
Holcroft, T., 95.
Holinshed, Raphael, 27, 29, 30.
Homer, 5, 30, 37.
Horestes, 10, 156.
How a Man May Choose a Good

Wife from a Bad, 106.
Hugo, Victor, 59.
Hunter, Joseph, 35, 37.

Ibsen, Henrik, 16, 47, 85, 88, 90, 98.
Impressions de theatre, 99n.
Influence of Beaumont and Fletcher

on Shakespeare, The, 45 n.
Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan

Tragedy, The, 49n.
Inter esse, L', 124.
Ion, 48n.
Iphegenia among the Tauri, 48n,

134-
Iron Age, The, 80.

Jack Juggler, 104.

Jack Straw, 123.

James IV, 61.

Jefferson, Joseph, 112.

Jeronimo, 66.

Jew of Malta, The, 12, 51, 61, 147-

Job, 148.

Jocasta, 9, 149.

Jodelet, 114.

Jodelet Duelliste, Le, 124.

Johan Johan, 116, 119.

Johnson, C. F., 107.

Johnson, Samuel, 101, 108, 158, 159.

Jones, H. A., 16, 86.

Jonson, Ben, 52, 120, 147-

Julius Caesar, 3, 25, 30, 42, 64, 68,

75, 79, 84n, 85, 138, 141, 146, 147,
148, 151, 154, 157, 166, 168.

Kdliddsa, 109, 149, 163.

Kilian, Eugen, 19, 48n, 69, 7<>, 92,

107, 128.

King and No King, A, 123.
King Johan, 54.
King John, 25, 26, 31, 32, 42, 73, 84,

121-123.
King Lear, 19, 25, 32, 44, 53, 55, 57,

59, 62, 74, 75, 84, 89, 95, 109,

136, 138, 152, 160, 161.
King Leir, 32, 63.
Kinwelmersh, Francis, 149.
Knight of Malta, The, 52.
Knight of the Burning Pestle, The,

76, 78, 114.

174

Knowles, Sheridan, 75, 135.

Kyd, Thomas, n, 13, 33, 36, 5*. 66.

Lady of Lyons, The, 76.

Lamb, Charles, 159.

League of Youth, The, 16.

Lectures on Dramatic Art and Liter
ature, 14411.

Lemaitre, Jules, 98.

Leo, Friedrich, 5, 135-136.

Lessing, G. E., 75, 8411, 128.

Lewis, M. G., 63, 9211, 158.

Like unto Like, 104.

Lintilhac, Eugene, 103, 116.

Look about You, 56.

Lope de Vega, 52, 87.

Love's Labour's Lost, 24, 41, 93, 97,
108, 113, 129, 164.

Lowell, J. R., 13.

Lucian, 32.

Lyly, John, 13, 51, 56, 7sn, 76, 105,
113.

Lyndsay, Sir David, 139.

Lysistrata, 7, 48n, 83.

Macbeth, 14, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 44,
59, 63, 66, 68, 75, 82, 87, 111-112,
131, 137, 138, 141, 143, 145, 146,
147, 148, 152, 155, 157, 161, 167,
1 68.

Maeterlinck, M., 53.

Magistrate, The, 69.

Magnificence, 59, 60, 118.

Maid's Tragedy, The, 57, 76.

Maitre Pierre Patelin, 132.

Major alcade el rey, El, 52.

Malade imaginaire, Le, 52.

Malati and Madhava, 76.

Manfred, 52, 73.

Mankind, 50, 95, 139.

Man's Disobedience, 8.

Mariage force, Le, 85.

Marlowe, Christopher, 12-14, 42, 48,
51, 52, 61, 67, 76, 78, 105, 140,
146, 147.

Marmontel, J. F., 19.

Marston, John, n, 60, 120, 142.

Massacre of Paris, The, 147.
Matthews, Brander, 16, i7n, 2on, 98.
Measure for Measure, n, 25, 31, 42,

43, 63, 64, 84n, 92, 109, 136, I48n,

151, 155, 157.

Medea, 6, 48n, 49, 74, 133, 139, 167.
Medecin malgre lui, Le, 91.
Medico de su honra, El, 68.
Medieval Stage, The, io2n.
Melicerte, 91.
Menaechmi, 31, 49, 119.
Menteur, La suite du, 15.
Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, J. L. F., 18.
Mercator, 49, 83.
Merchant of Venice, The, 4, 25, 26,

42, 88, 109, 128, 136, 137, 156.
Meredith, George, 121.
Merry Wives of Windsor, The, 25,

42, 55, 57, 68, 83, 84n, 8711, 89,

io6n, no, 117, 127, 136, 165.
Michael and His Lost Angel, 86.
Middleton, Thomas, 52, 120.
Midsummer-Night's Dream, A, 25,

37, 55, 74, 75, 76, 82, 85, 88, 106,

108, 114, 116, 136, 137, 165, 166.
Miles Gloriosus, 56, 86n.
Mind and Art of Shakespeare, The,

58.

Minna von Barnhelm, 75.
Mirandola, 52.
Misanthrope, Le, 16.
Misfortunes of Arthur, The, 9, 141.
Misogonus, 9.
Mitford, M. R., 53, 90.
Moliere, 16, 52, 83, 85, 86, 88, 91,

95n, 96, 102, 104, 124, 135.
Monologue dramatique, Le, io3n,

n8n.

Monsieur Thomas, 57.
Morgann, Maurice, 124-125.
Mott, L. F., 35.
Mucedorus, 56, 105.
Much Ado about Nothing, 25, 43,

129-131, 150, 165.
Mudrd-Rdkshasa, 138, 141, 152, 158.
Mulgrave, Earl of, 17, 163.

175

Nature of the Four Elements, 139.
Neilson, W. A., 311, 270, 46.
Nice Wanton, 60.
Nicolai, Friedrich, 18.
Noah and Lantech, 77, 155.
Noah's Flood, 13911.

Octavia, 49.

Oedipe, 15.

Oedipus, 49.

O'Keefe, John, 9211.

Old English Dramatists, 1311.

Old Fortunatus, 123.

Orestes, 4811.

Orlando Furioso, 142, 160.

Orra, 96.

Othello, 19, 25, 44, 55, 59, 62, 79,

84, 87, 107, 137, 152, 162, 165,

167.

Otto of Wittelsbach, 90.
Ovid, 37, 115.

Painter, William, 40.

Painter of His Own Dishonor, 134.

Palace of Pleasure, 40.

Pandosto, 45.

Pastor Fido, II, 95.

Patterne of Painful Adventures, 38.

Paull, H. M., 3, 16, 17.

Peele, George, 13, 78, 161.

Pericles, 25, 27n, 38, 44, 55, 66, 141,
145, 147, 153.

Pertharite, 15.

Phaedra, 50, 163.

Philaster, 45.

Phillips, Stephen, 75.

Phoenician Women, 48n, 91, 139.

Phormio, 49.

Physician of His Honor, 135.

Picot, fimile, i03n, n8n.

Pillars of Society, The, 84, 86.

Pi>/>o Passes, 53.

Plaideurs, Les, 75.

Plautus, i, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, 31, 48,
49, S3, 56, 59, 64, 66, 69, 71, 83,
86, 89, gin, 92, 94, 95n, 103, 105,
in, 114, 117, 119, 122, 129.

Plutarch, 30, 41.

Plutus, 7.

Poetique frangoise, 18.,

Pompee, 15.

Pratique du Theatre, 18, 69.

Precieuses ridicules, 16.

Preston, Thomas, 91, 134.

Price, W. T., 19.

Principe constante, El, 124.

Proctor, B. W., 52.

Profligate, The, 81, 87.

Prometheus Bound, 6, 134, 136, 162.

Promos and Cassandra, 10-11, 31,

56, 92, 156.
Prophets, The, 53.
Proverbs, 148.
Psalms, 148.
Puente de mantible, 124.

Quellen des Weltlichen Dramas, son.

Racine, 75.

Ramler, S. K. W., 17.

Rastell, John, 139.

Ratnavali, 48, 94.

Rauber, Die, 75.

Rehearsal, The, 128.

Respublica, 54.

Revenger's Tragedy, The, 54.

Ricardus Tertius, 28.

Richard II, 25, 2,.2,, 144

6i, 64, 71, 86, 87n, 102,

147, 148', 150, 1^ 161,
Richelieu, 60. ^-^
Roister Doister, g, 50, 104, 105.
Romeo and Juliet, 19, 25, 26, 38-41,

42, 55, 67, 76, 79, 80, 82, 87n, 94,

97, 109, 115, 137, 147. I5I» I<>4,

1 68.

Romeo and Juliette, 14.
Romeus and Juliet, 39, 40.
Rostand, Edmond, 66, 163.

Sdkuntala, 67, 86, 109, 149,
Sapho and Phao, 113.
Satire of the Three Estates,

176

Saul, 134-

Scaliger, J. C., 99.

Scapin, 96.

Scarron, Paul, 114, 124.

Schelling, F. E., 42.

Schlegel, A. W. von, 144.

Schiller, J. C. F. von, 75-

Scott, Sir Walter, 19, 20, 83.

Secret Love, 57.

Secunda Pastorum, 8, 14, 91, 122,

134-

Se janus, 147.
Seneca, 6-7, 9, 14, 49, So, 74, 133,

136, 139, 141, 149, 162, 167.
Senecan Influence on Elizabethan

Drama, i4in.
Sganarelle, 91, 124.
Shakespeare and His Critics, loyn.
Shakespeare Commentaries, 122.
Shakespearean Tragedy, Sgn, ggn,

no.
Shakespearesche Monolog und seine

Spielweise, Der, 48n.
Shaw, Bernard, 75.
Sheil, R., 90.

Shelly, P. B., 53, 76, 96, 135.
Sheridan, R. B., 77, 114.
She Stoops to Conquer, 91.
Shirley, James, 90.
Skeat, W. W., 2n.
Skelton, John, 59, 60, 118.
Soliman and Persida, 11, 119, 123.
Sonnenfels, Joseph von, 18, 83n.
Sophocles, 5, 6, 48, 80, 139, 149.
Sophonisba, 12.
Spanish Tragedy, The, n, 80, 158,

160, 165.

Stichus, 103, 122.
Stc'l, E. E., 62n.
Stcty, W. W., 59n, 157.
St: 'aijs, Jacob, 40.
Sti dley, John, 133.
St'i iy of Shelley's Drama, the Cenci,

*7 i35n.
Stuay of the Prolog and Epilog, A,

49 •
Suppl ants, 48n, 139.

Supposes, 9.

Tale of Mystery, A, 96.

Talfourd, T. N., 76.

Tamburlaine, i2n, 13, 14, 78, 80,

140, 161.
Taming of a Shrew, The, 32, 42,

1 06.
Taming of the Shrew, The, 25, 31,

55, 84n, 106, 109, 114, 137.
Tancred and Gismunda, 85.
Tartuffe, 16, 84.
Tasso, 95.

Technique of the Drama, ign, 81.
Tempest, The, 25, 45, 109, in.
Tenne Tragedies, 9, 49, 133.
Terence, i, 7, 9, 10, 15, 48, 49, 64,

69, 71, 86, 89, 91, 94, 95n, 102,

ix>3, in.
Theodore, 15.
Ther sites, 104, 118.
Thief, The, 86n.
Thorndike, A. H., nn, 33, 45.
Thyestes, 6, 136, 141.
Timon of Athens, 4, 19, 25, 26, 27n,

32, 43, 44, 55, 65, 146, 153, 166.
Titus Andronicus, 24, 26, 27, 61, 64,

74, 97, 134, 135, i36n, 164.
Tobin, John, 68.
Toison d'or, La, 16.
Tolman, A. H., 160.
Tom Tyler, 116.
Tourneur, Cyril, 52, 54.
Towneley Plays, son, i04n.
Toy-Cart, The, 48, 60, 66, 73, 74, 75,

83, 154-

Tragic Drama in Aeschylus, Sopho
cles and Shakespeare, 62.
Traitor, The, 90.
Trinummus, 49, 129.
Troades, 6.
Troilus and Cressida, 25, 37, 82, 89,

120-121, 139, 147, 151, 164, 165.
Trojan Women, 48n.
Troublesome Raigne of King John,

The, 31, 73-
Truculentus, 49.

177

True Tragedy of Richard, Duke of
York, The, 27, 28, 29, 32.

True Tragedy of Richard III, The,
32.

Twelfth Night, 25, 43, 55, 59, 65,
68, 8711, 93, 97, 129, 151, 165.

Twine, Laurence, 38.

Two Gentlemen of Verona, The, 24,
42, 63, 81, 82, 88, 102, 106, 108,
i36n, 137, 146, 147, 164, 165.

Two Lamentable Tragedies, 61.

Uber den Monolog in Shakespeare's

Dramen, 162, 164.
Ulysses, 75.
Uttara-Rama-Charitra, 1 58.

Valentinian, 79.

Versuch einer Critischen Dichtkunst,

i7n.

Views about Hamlet, The, i6on.
Virgil, 152.
Virginius, 135.
Voltaire, 83n.

Wanderer, The, 5.

Whetstone, George, 10-11, 31, 56,

92.
Whole Art of the Stage, The, i8n,

Wild Oats, 92n.

William Shakespeare, 144.

Wilmot, Robert, 85.

Winter's Tale, The, 25, 45, 53, 65,

67, 92, Il7-Il8, 120.

Wisdom Who is Christ, 60.

Women Pleased, 57.

Woman Killed with Kindness, A,

Woodes, Nathaniel, 60.
Worthies of England, The, i24n.
Wright, E. H., i53n.
Wright, W. A., 115.

Yarrington, Robert, 52.
York Plays,, son, sin.

Zur Kunstentwicklung der Engli-
schen Tragddie, i2n.

THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

Columbia University in the City of New York

The Press was incorporated June 8, 1893, to promote the publication
of the results of original research. It is a private corporation, related di.
rectly to Columbia University by the provisions that its Trustees shall be
officers of the University and that the President of Columbia University
shall be President of the Press.

The publications of the Columbia University Press include works on
Biography, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, Linguistics, and
Literature, and the following series :

Columbia University Biological Series.

Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology.

Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature.

Columbia University Studies in English.

Columbia University Geological Series.

Columbia University Germanic Studies.

Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series.

Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and

Philology.

Columbia University Oriental Studies.

Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Liter
ature.

Blumenthal Lectures. Hewitt Lectures.

Carpentier Lectures. Jesup Lectures.

Julius Beer Lectures

Catalogues will be sent free on application.

LEMCKE & BUECHNER, Agents

30-32 WEST 27th ST., NEW YORK

THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

STUDIES IN ENGLISH

Joseph Glanvill. By FEERIS GREENSLET, Ph.D., Cloth, ismo, pp. xi + 235,
$1.50 net.

The Elizabethan Lyric. By JOHN ERSKINE, Ph.D., Cloth, lamo, pp. xvi

+ 344, $1.50 net.
Classical Echoes in Tennyson. By WILFRED P. MUSTARD, Ph.D., Cloth,

i2mo, pp. xvi + 164, $1.25 net.
Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature. By MARGARET BALL, Ph.D.,

Paper, 8vo, pp. x + 188, $1.00 net.
The Early American Novel. By LILLIE DEMING LOSHE, Ph.D., Paper, 8vo,

pp. vii + 131, $1.00 net.
Studies in New England Transcendentalism. By HAROLD C. GODDARD,

Ph.D., Paper, 8vo, pp. x + 217, $1.00 net.
A Study of Shelley's Drama "The Cenci." By ERNEST SUTHERLAND

BATES, Ph.D., Paper, 8vo, pp. ix + 103, $1.00 net.
Verse Satire in England before the Renaissance. By SAMUEL MARION

TUCKER, Ph.D., Paper, 8vo, pp. xi + 245, $1.00 net.
The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in

English. By JACOB ZEITLIN, Ph.D., Paper, 8vo, pp. viii + 177, $1.00 net.
Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama. By VIRGINIA CRO-

CHERON GILDERSLEEVE, Ph.D., Cloth, 8vo, pp. vii + 259, $I-25 net.
The Stage History of Shakespeare's King Richard the Third. By ALICE

I. PERRY WOOD, Ph.D., Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + 186, $1.25 net.
The Shaksperian Stage. By VICTOR E. ALBRIGHT, Ph.D., Cloth, 8vo, pp.

xii + *94> $i-So net.
Thomas Carlyle as a Critic of Literature. By FREDERICK W. ROE, Ph.D.,

Cloth, 8vo, pp. xi + iS2» $i.25 net.
The Authorship of Timon of Athens. By ERNEST HUNTER WRIGHT, Ph.D.,

Cloth, 8vo, pp. ix + 104, $1.25 net.
English Tragicomedy, Its Origin and History. By FRANK H. RISTINE,

Ph.D., Cloth, 8vo, pp. xv + 247, $1.50 net.

Lemcke & Buechner, Agents
30-32 West 27th Street New York

THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

STUDIES IN ENGLISH

Leigh Hunt's Relations with "Byron, Shelley and Keats. By BARNETTE
MILLER, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth, pp. vii + 169, $1.25 net.

The Rise of the Novel of Manners. By CHARLOTTE E. MORGAN, Ph.D.
8vo, cloth, pp. ix + 271. Price, $1.25 net.

John Dennis. His Life and Criticism. By HARRY G. PAUL, Ph.D. 8vo,
cloth, pp. viii + 229. Price, $1.25 net.

New Poems of James VI. and I. By ALLAN F. WESTCOTT, Ph.D. 8vo,
cloth. In press.

The Middle English Penitential Lyric. BY FRANK ALLEN PATTERSON,
Ph.D. 8vo, cloth. Price, $1.25 net.

The Exemplum in the Early Religious and Didactic Literature of Eng
land. By JOSEPH ALBERT MOSHER, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth. Price, $1.25 net.

The Soliloquies of Shakespeare. By MORRIS LEROY ARNOLD, Ph.D. 8vo,
cloth. Price, $1.25 net.

The Political Prophecy in England. By RUPERT TAYLOR. 8vo, cloth,
pp. xx + 165. Price, $1.25 net. -

A Study of Thomas Dekker. By MARY LELAND HUNT, Ph.D. 8vo, cloth.
Price $1.25 net.

STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE LITERATURE

Romances of Roguery. By FRANK WADLEIGH CHANDLER, Ph.D. Part I.

The Picaresque Novel in Spain. 12010, cloth, pp. ix + 483. Price,

$2.00 net.
A History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance. By JOEL ELIAS

SPINGARN, Ph.D. Second edition, revised and augmented. i2mo,

cloth, pp. xi + 330. Price, $1.50 net.

Platonism in English Poetry of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Cen
turies. By JOHN SMITH HARRISON, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth, pp. xi + 235.

Price, $2.00 net.
Irish Life in Irish Fiction. By HORATIO SHEAFE KRANS, Ph.D. i2mo,

cloth, pp. vii + 338. Price, $1.50 net.
The English Heroic Play. By LEWIS NATHANIEL CHASE, Ph.D. i2mo,

cloth, pp. xii + 250. Price, $2.00 net.
The Oriental Tale in England in the Eighteenth Century. By MARTHA

PIKE CONANT, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth, pp. 'xxvi + 3*2. Price, $2.00 net.
The French Influence in English Literature. By ALFRED HORATIO UPHAM,

Ph.D. i2mo, cloth, pp. ix + 560. Price, $2.00 net.
The Influence of Moliere on Restoration Comedy. By DUDLEY H.

MILES, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth, pp. xi + 272. Price, $1.50 net.
The Greek Romances in Elizabethan Prose Fiction. By SAMUEL LEE

WOLFF, Ph.D. i2mo, cloth. Price, $1.50 net.

Lemcke & Buechner, Agents,
30-32 West 27th Street New York

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The soliloquies of Shakespeare; a study in technic"

See other formats