Hirsh, James. Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies. Madison: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 2003.

These fundamental theatrical questions in turn raise profound aesthetic and philosophical questions. 13

An audience-addressed soliloquy is primarily a narrative rather than a dramatic technique. 14

Since the late seventeenth century, self-addressed speeches by characters have been severely condemned as unrealistic because real human beings do not regularly talk to themselves. 15

In a great many self-addressed soliloquies the speaking character addresses someone or something without actually intending, expecting, or hoping that the person or thing addressed will hear the speech. This is the single most common technique to prevent a self-addressed speech from becoming undramatic. It turns a self-addressed speech into one side of a hypothetical quarrel, debate, courtship, or other dramatic interaction with someone or something. By contrast, apostrophes are infrequent in audience-addressed soliloquies for the obvious reason that, if one is speaking to real listeners, one does not usually address imaginary listeners at the same time. 15

I have not discovered any evidence that any soliloquy in any European play before the middle of the seventeenth century was designed as an interior monologue or was perceived as one by playgoers. Thus, before the middle of the seventeenth century there were only two kinds of soliloquies, audience address and self-address, both of which represented speeches by characters. The history of soliloquies until the end of the seventeenth century was a history of the alteration between these two as the dominant convention. 18

The age of Shakespeare has been the only period in which such soliloquies occurred pervasively in all genres, not just comedy. Playwrights vied with one another in exploiting to the full the dramatic possibilities of self-addressed speech. 19

This was a radical shift, but it was not a shift from external behavior to interiority. It was a shift from one kind of external behavior, a very public form of behavior in which a character addresses a large group of playgoers, to another kind of external behavior, a very private form of behavior in which a character speaks only to himself. 20

William Congreve: “when a Man in Soliloquy reasons with himself, . . . We ought not to imagine that this Man either talks to us, or to himself; he is only thinking, and such Matter as were inexcusable Folly in him to speak.” This new type of soliloquy that represented “thinking” rather than speaking was an interior monologue, although it did not acquire that label for two centuries. Congreve actually specifies the three distinct kinds of soliloquy in the process of dismissing two of them: “talks to us” (audience address), “or to himself” (self-addressed speech), “only thinking” (interior monologue). 20

Self-addressed soliloquies guarded in asides were very common in ancient Roman farce. Most soliloquies guarded in asides in the medieval period were audience-addressed because most soliloquies in general in the period were audience-addressed. After the strong reaction against audience address by non-choral characters arose late in the sixteenth century, soliloquies guarded in asides, like soliloquies in general, took the form of self-addressed speeches, which occurred very frequently. 22

Although the evidence clearly demonstrates that soliloquies in Shakespeare’s plays were meant to represent self-addressed speeches by characters, since the late seventeenth century a self-addressed speech by a character has been regarded as preposterous. Actors have been understandably reluctant to portray a character engaged in preposterous behavior unless the character is supposed to be foolish or insane. Consequently, many post-Renaissance actors portraying Shakespeare characters have sought to convey the impression—by means of body language, gestures, direction of gaze, and so forth—that, instead of talking to himself, the character is addressing playgoers, even though the character never explicitly acknowledges the presence of playgoers and often explicitly addresses himself. Converting a soliloquy from self-addressed speech to audience address is a significant change, one that entails significant concomitant changes in the dynamics of the dramatic situation, in characterization, and in thematic implications…Other post-Renaissance actors have tried to convey the impression that, instead of talking to herself, the character is merely thinking the words spoken by the actor. This shift from a self-addressed speech to an interior monologue radically alters the relationship between playgoers and the character. Instead of observing the character’s outward behavior, as they might that of a fellow human being, playgoers are now given godlike unmediated access to the character’s mind. 30

False assumptions have become deeply embedded in performing and scholarly traditions. 31

Another key factor in the rise and maintenance of misconceptions about the conventions governing soliloquies in Shakespeare’s age has been the status of the “To be, or not to be” passage as the quintessential and hence paradigmatic soliloquy. The passage did not achieve this status until after the conditions of its staging had been radically altered. In the design of the episode in which this passage is found, Shakespeare made imaginative implicit use of the conventions governing soliloquies at the time. As one of countless examples of the operations of those conventions in the period, the passage would not have made sense to playgoers in Shakespeare’s theater as anything other than a feigned soliloquy, spoken as a deceptive ploy by Hamlet when he arrives at the location to which he has been summoned by his deadly enemy. Since the late seventeenth century, however, the passage has been presumed, anachronistically, to represent an expression of Hamlet’s innermost thoughts. Because the most famous soliloquy in dramatic history was presumed to represent a character’s innermost thoughts, many critics have gone on to presume that the primary or highest purpose of soliloquies in Shakespeare’s plays and throughout the ages has always been to represent the innermost thoughts of characters. This false assumption about soliloquies has been reinforced by long-term and massive commentary about the most famous passage in world literature, by the yearning of countless playgoers and readers to be put in touch with the innermost thoughts of Hamlet and of other dramatic characters, by the sheer size and inertia of the Shakespeare industry, and the self-perpetuating power of orthodoxy. 32

Soliloquies frequently contain references to the fact that the character is speaking. Some soliloquies are overheard by other characters. Even soliloquies guarded in asides from one character could be overheard by an eavesdropping character of whose presence the speaker is unaware. I have not encountered any evidence that before the late seventeenth century any soliloquy was designed by a dramatist as an interior monologue or was interpreted as such by a playgoer. 62

Soliloquies occur sporadically in ancient Greek tragedy and Old Comedy; many plays begin with an expository soliloquy but contain few other soliloquies. The dominant kind of soliloquy was audience address. In Greek New Comedy and Roman comedy, soliloquies occur with great frequency; many are guarded in asides; many occur in intricate eavesdropping episodes; and the dominant form was self-address. In medieval drama, audience-addressed soliloquies occurred frequently, and self-address infrequently. 62

Medieval drama did not make a sharp distinction between the world depicted in the play and the world occupied by playgoers. At any point during a play any character might explicitly refer to or address playgoers. Soliloquies in which playgoers are explicitly addressed occur in folk plays, mystery plays, moralities, and interludes. Audience-addressed soliloquies occur more frequently than soliloquies of self-address. In Mankind, for example, twenty soliloquies are explicitly addressed to playgoers, and only three contain explicit self-address. Hence, when a character’s words were not directed at another character and did not contain explicit indicators of self-address, experienced playgoers would have assumed that the speech was addressed to themselves. 78

Because in ancient Greek tragedy and Old Comedy and in medieval drama characters were aware of playgoers as a matter of course, it would seem to follow logically that there could be no such thing in these plays as genuine self-address. And yet on occasion a character does explicitly address himself. 81

In such cases the character for a particular reason momentarily ceases to be mindful that he is being observed by playgoers, usually because he is carried away by emotion. However illogical this may seem, in the context of religious drama it would have been regarded as all too realistic. Momentary obliviousness to being observed allows human beings to sin. Someone who sins disregards the will of the gods or God, disregard the fact that his behavior is always being observed by a divine being. The sinner is so carried away by desire, anger, or some other state of mind that he ceases to be mindful of this scrutiny; he puts it out of his mind. A major lesson of many ancient and medieval plays and most morality plays is that one cannot conceal one’s behavior from the gods or God. One is, in effect, always onstage. Privacy is an illusion, a dangerous illusion that promotes sinfulness. Although self-address thus could occur in the religious drama of ancient and medieval times, it occurred less frequently than audience address. Audience address was a method of suggesting that one should regard all one’s actions as public and an indication that the function of such drama was the assertion of communal values. 81

The outrageous audience addresses of Vice characters may be the most memorable features of moralities, but they were the last gasps of a dying convention. The second stage in the narrowing employing of audience address occurred in the 1580s, once professional acting companies had established themselves in London. This stage involved the nearly complete elimination of audience address by any character engaged in the action while the action is still in progress. Audience address became limited to formal choral figures detached from the fictional world and to epilogues by other characters. Characters engaged in the action did not address playgoers in the midst of a play and then return to the fictional world (except in farcical parodies of the outmoded dramaturgy). 83

In ancient Greek tragedy and Old Comedy, the dominant form of soliloquy was audience address. In Menander’s comedies and Roman farce the dominant form was self-address. In medieval drama, the pendulum swung back to audience address. During the course of the sixteenth century the occurrence of audience address was severely limited, and self-address had become pervasive. 83

In some instances a character becomes so overwhelmed by emotion that he speaks to himself with other characters onstage and does not have the presence of mind to guard his soliloquy. 99

By the late sixteenth century, audience-addressed soliloquies were generally limited to such Choruses and to epilogues by other characters. Soliloquies by characters still engaged in the fictional action, including soliloquies guarded in asides, represented self-address, not audience address. Playgoers eavesdrop on what the character says to himself. By the late sixteenth century, situations in which a character overtly addresses playgoers in the midst of the dramatic action were regarded as amateurish and antiquated. In late Renaissance plays, such episodes occur infrequently (except in some masques), much less frequently than in ancient, medieval, and early Renaissance plays. And most of the instances that do occur serve the purpose of ridiculing the practice. 106

In the Elizabethan theatre the line dividing a world of shadows from reality came to separate the actors from their audience. [Anne Righter Barton] 106

In the amateur theatrical presentations within Love’s Labor’s Lost and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare ridiculed the practice of audience address by characters engaged in the action. 107

Because playgoers encountered so many soliloquies that explicitly represented self-address and rarely encountered soliloquies by characters engaged in the action that explicitly represented audience address, they would have assumed as a matter of course that a soliloquy represented self-address unless the convention was overridden by an explicit address to themselves. 112

But the insistence with which Faustus addresses himself indicates that Marlowe’s strategy was not the result of ignorance of stagecraft or carelessness. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how Marlowe could have highlighted more emphatically a fundamental contrast between his dramatic technique and that of earlier drama. In the new drama, audience address is narrowly restricted to speeches by choral figures detached from the fictional action and to epilogues by characters who had been engaged in the fictional action. Soliloquies by characters still involved in the fictional action are self-addressed speeches, not audience address. 114

This is not a trivial or merely technical matter. Unlike medieval characters, who explicitly establish a social relationship between themselves and playgoers, Faustus communes only with himself. He is immediately and vividly dramatized as an isolated individual, radically cut off from communal life. Faustus does not know he is a character in a play, does not know he is being observed by playgoers, and so is alone in a way that no character in a medieval drama could have been. Marlowe directly contrasts the discourse of the Chorus, who in an address to playgoers gives voice to traditional and communal values, with the highly individual, private discourse of Faustus, who is in the process of isolating himself from the community. 115

Mystery plays and moralities celebrate shared beliefs and values. The convention of audience address reflected and contributed to this communalism. By the late sixteenth century a host of social forces had seriously undermined the spirit of communalism. The Reformation emphasized the individual’s private relationship with God. Mercantile capitalism fostered individual enterprise and a spirit of competition among individuals. The supplanting of audience address, the prevailing kind of soliloquy in medieval drama, by self-address, the prevailing kind of soliloquy in late Renaissance drama, reflected and contributed to the new value placed on privacy, individualism, and pluralism. 115

…it can also be distinguished from the subsequent dramatization of interiority in the form of interior monologues that began to appear in Western drama only in the late seventeenth century. The evidence has shown that late Renaissance playwrights restricted themselves to the dramatization of outward behavior, which included self-addressed speeches. Real human beings do not have direct access to one another’s minds, and Renaissance playwrights did not give playgoers direct access to the hypothetical minds of characters. In this respect, the relationship of a playgoer to characters was similar to her relationships to her fellow human beings. 116

There is an important difference between a situation in which a character attempts to convince himself of something and a situation in which a character attempts to convince two thousand strangers of something. 227

If playgoers were Hamlet’s confidants, then the character of Horatio would be redundant. 227

The demonstrable fact that soliloquies in Shakespeare’s plays represent self-addressed speeches by characters does not mean that the same words spoken as self-address by a character could not also simultaneously carry a second, metadramatic significance (unbeknownst to the character) when considered as the speech of the actor portraying the character. 228

There is no evidence that any soliloquy by a character engaged in the fictional action represented audience response except in three cases in which the main dramatic function of the episode is precisely to ridicule audience address as antiquated and amateurish. 230

Any attention at all to soliloquies after Shakespeare’s retirement form the theater might seem extraneous because conventions governing soliloquies after Shakespeare’s death could not possibly have influenced his dramatic practices. But in fact they have utterly transformed his dramatic practices in the sense that they have utterly transformed post-Renaissance perceptions of Shakespeare’s practices. When Shakespeare plays were revived in later ages, performers adapted the plays to conform to their own theatrical conventions, practices, and aesthetic tastes. Many post-Renaissance commentators on Shakespeare’s plays have convinced themselves that he shared their own aesthetic tastes and have anachronistically projected on this plays notions about soliloquies that arose only after he died and that are incompatible with pervasive evidence in his plays. 278