Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Soliloquies in Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus and
Shakespeare’s Hamlet:
How they reveal the main characters’ inner mind and character
development
Diplomarbeit
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
einer Magistra der Philosophie
an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
vorgelegt von
Katrin STABER
am Institut für Anglistik
Begutachter: Ao.Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr.phil. Hugo Keiper
Graz, im Oktober 2012
i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
2 Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare ........................................................ 2
2.1 Marlowe’s and Shakespeare’s lives as contemporaries ............................ 2
2.2 Christopher Marlowe as a dramatist ......................................................... 4
2.3 William Shakespeare as a dramatist ......................................................... 5
2.4 The relationship between Marlowe and Shakespeare ............................... 7
3 Definition and history of soliloquies......................................................................... 10
3.1 Definition ................................................................................................ 10
3.2 History..................................................................................................... 12
4 Analysis..................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Doctor Faustus ....................................................................................... 14
4.1.1 Sources and editions of Doctor Faustus ............................................... 14
4.1.2 Summary of Doctor Faustus ................................................................... 16
4.1.7.1 “Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin / To sound the depth of that thou
wilt profess” (1.1.1-62) ........................................................................... 24
4.1.7.2 “How am I glutted with conceit of this!” (1.1.77-98) ............................. 27
4.1.7.3 “Now that the gloomy shadow of the night, / Longing to view Orion’s
drizzling look” (1.3.1-31) ....................................................................... 29
4.1.7.4 “Had I as many souls as there be stars, / I’d give them all for
Mephistopheles” (1.3.100-112) .............................................................. 30
4.1.7.5 “Now, Faustus, must thou needs be damned?” (2.1.1-13) ...................... 32
4.1.7.6 “Wealth? / Why, the seigniory of Emden shall be mine” (2.1.22-27) .... 33
4.1.7.7 “My heart is hardened; I cannot repent” (2.3.18-30) .............................. 34
4.1.7.8 “What art thou, Faustus, but a man condemned to die?” (4.4.21-26) ..... 36
4.1.7.9 “O Faustus, / Now hast thou but one bare hour to live” (5.2.132-185) .. 37
4.1.8 Doctor Faustus’ soliloquies - conclusion ................................................ 41
4.2 Hamlet ..................................................................................................... 41
4.2.7 Analysis of Hamlet’s soliloquies ............................................................ 51
4.2.7.1 “O that this too too solid flesh would melt” (1.2.129-159) .................... 51
ii
4.2.7.2 “O all you host of heaven! O earth! What else?” (1.5.92-113)............... 54
4.2.7.3 “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” (2.2.526-582) ...................... 56
4.2.7.4 “To be, or not to be; that is the question:” (3.1.58-92) ........................... 60
4.2.7.5 “’Tis now the very witching time of night” (3.2.358-369) ..................... 64
4.2.7.6 “Now might I do it pat, now a is praying, / And now I’ll do’t” (3.3.73-96)
................................................................................................................. 66
4.2.7.7 “How all occasions do inform against me” (4.4.9.22-9.56).................... 68
4.3 Comparison of Doctor Faustus and Hamlet ............................................ 72
5 Summary ................................................................................................................... 74
6 Bibliography ............................................................................................................. 75
6.1 Primary sources ....................................................................................... 75
6.2 Secondary sources ................................................................................... 75
1
1 Introduction
In drama, soliloquies have always had an especially impressive effect on readers as well
as on the audience as it is in the soliloquies that characters most reveal their inner
thoughts. Two plays in which soliloquies serve this important function are Marlowe’s
Doctor Faustus and Shakespeare’s Hamlet. These two plays have been chosen for this
analysis because, in addition to their use of soliloquies, the fact that Marlowe and
Shakespeare were contemporaries makes a comparison particularly fascinating.
The primary aim of this thesis is to determine the state of mind of the protagonists of
Faustus and Hamlet by examining their soliloquies. After a description of each character,
the protagonist’s motivations for speaking are examined in context, with emphasis on the
character development shown and the dramatic consequences thereof.
Chapter 2 introduces the reader to Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare. Their
lives as contemporaries, their abilities as playwrights, and their relationship are discussed.
Chapter 3 gives a definition of the soliloquy and aside and outlines the historical
development, function, and importance of those literary devices.
Chapter 4 is devoted to the detailed analysis of the two plays. 4.1 analyses Doctor
Faustus as it was written first, and 4.2 discusses Hamlet. Both sub-chapters provide, first,
details about the plays’ sources and plots. Secondly, character conceptions and character
descriptions of both Doctor Faustus and Hamlet are given, including references to the
texts and comparisons to other characters. Thirdly, the importance of the soliloquies of
Doctor Faustus and Hamlet is shown in context. For each soliloquy, the main character’s
reasons for speaking as well as the content are analyzed, the focus being on the character
development of the protagonists. Sub-chapter 4.3 compares the characters of Doctor
Faustus and Hamlet.
Chapter 5 gives a summary of the most important findings concerning the soliloquies of
Doctor Faustus and Hamlet.
2
2 Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare
Chapter 2 provides an introduction to Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare,
their lives as contemporaries, describes Marlowe and Shakespeare as dramatists, and
compares Marlowe and Shakespeare as playwrights. There are speculations about their
relationship and authorship which are discussed in this part of the thesis.
2.1 Marlowe’s and Shakespeare’s lives as contemporaries
The 16th
century was a time when, as Halliday (1986: 27) points out, the English drama
was in a sorry state: “The Reformation had almost killed the religious drama, and as yet
the Renaissance had produced no comparable secular drama to take its place” However,
this would soon change with the birth of these two marvelous writers. Christopher
Marlowe and William Shakespeare were both born in the year 1564 (Healy 1994: vi;
Halliday 1986: 13).
Marlowe’s and Shakespeare’s lives were different. In contrast to Shakespeare, Marlowe
received formal education. After obtaining his MA from Cambridge University, Marlowe
worked as a playwright in London and, at this time around 1587-8 (cf. Bevington and
Rasmussen 1998: vii), created his groundbreaking works including Tamburlaine, The Jew
of Malta, The Massacre at Paris, Doctor Faustus, Edward II and Hero and Leander (cf.
Healy 1994: vi).
While his interest in reading and writing could already be seen at an early age,
Shakespeare began with his professional career without the benefit of a formal education,
after having started a family (cf. Halliday 1986: 32-48).
Compared with Shakespeare, there is less information on Marlowe as a dramatist but far
more speculation about his thrilling life as an undercover agent who was proclaimed a
heretic and finally killed in 1593 in a fight at a tavern (cf. Healy 1994: vi). Marlowe was
a person even more fascinating than the statements above indicate; there were also
accusations “that the playwright was a proselytizing atheist, a counterfeiter, and a
consumer of ‘boys and tobacco’” (Riggs in Cheney 2004: 24). In contrast to Marlowe,
3
Shakespeare lived a simple family life and was only able to establish himself as
playwright a year before Marlowe’s death in 1593 (cf. Halliday 1986: 51).
There was a third major contemporary figure who can be seen as an influence on both
Shakespeare and Marlowe, namely the playwright Thomas Kyd. Not only was he the one
who shared rooms with Marlowe while studying, they also influenced each other’s
writing (cf. Riggs in Cheney 2004: 29-33): e.g. “Marlowe’s The Jew of Malta contains
verbal echoes of Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy, and bears family resemblances to Kyd’s
intricate revenge plot” (Riggs in Cheney 2004: 33).
Kyd’s work might also have been used by Shakespeare. Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy is
perhaps the model for Hamlet, and Kyd might have been the author of the Ur-Hamlet,
which may also have figured as a source for Shakespeare. Key elements can be found in
that work, including a ghost who tempts the protagonist into seeking revenge, the
protagonist’s fluctuation between real and played madness, the ‘soliloquy of reflection’,
and the ‘play-within-the play’ (cf. Höfele 2004: 243f).
Finally, it is necessary to speak of the ‘Marlowe myth’ and ‘Shakespeare myth’, since
speculation about both playwrights has stirred the imagination for centuries. Simkin
(2000: 10) argues that one reason for Marlowe’s continued popularity is the fact that
more information and rumours are available concerning his death than his life. As he puts
it, “Marlowe’s death, then, is interpreted in a number of different ways: first, as a
warning against atheism; then, connected with some kind of immoral sexual practice; and
now taken as proof of God’s disapproval of the theatre” (Simkin 2000: 13).
Halliday (1986: 118) argues that Shakespeare’s work continues to engage audiences
because of his talent for creating an incredible variety and range of characters in his
plays. Even today, Shakespeare continues to fascinate audiences as Halliday (1986: 120)
explains:
We read them [his plays and poetry] for his genial wisdom, his flooding
noonday illumination of life, his gaiety and wit, his essential sanity:
because he was the ideally normal man, whose far-ranging faculties were
all perfectly attuned and harmonized. We read Shakespeare because he is
4
the man whom we should all like to have for friend.
(Halliday 1986: 118; 120)
2.2 Christopher Marlowe as a dramatist
Beyond the ‘Marlowe myth’ outlined above, Marlowe is also connected to the ‘Marlowe
Effect’. Healy (1994) defines the ‘Marlowe Effect’, a salient feature of Marlowe’s plays:
a main character’s aspiration to become powerful and passionate, as well as the
thematization of deceit, destruction and obsession. Strikingly, such serious concerns were
often intermixed with comedic elements: comic and tragic plot lines often weirdly
combine, contradict or harmonize with each other. Healy (cf. 1994: 1) also argues that
Marlowe’s plays provoke, unsettle and challenge the readers/audience, create a link
between the past and the present and inspire the readers’/audience’s to re-evaluate their
preconceived ideas.
As Healy (cf. 1994: 10) argues, the ‘Marlowe Effect’ was highly successful during the
Renaissance period and helped Marlowe become one of the most celebrated playwrights
and poets of his time.
Marlowe’s ability to combine comic and tragic elements can also be found in his play
Doctor Faustus. Healy (cf. 1994: 59) argues that, although Doctor Faustus is defined as a
tragedy, many comic elements can be determined: the boyish tricks Faustus and
Mephistopheles play, the servants whose imitation of the main plot provides laughter and
Lucifer’s representation of the seven deadly sins, which can also be considered comic
rather than intimidating.
In addition to the ‘Marlowe Effect’, the play Doctor Faustus shows Marlowe’s interest in
the past:
Faustus has been momentarily persuaded by an old man to seek repentance
and turn to God. Mephistopheles chastises Faustus, who quickly realigns
himself with Satan. He asks to see Helen of Troy […]. […] Faustus’s
evocation of the Trojan War exemplifies Marlowe’s interest in characters
who desire to take on roles from the past, even when they pose destructive
consequences. The apparition of Helen provokes Faustus imaginatively to
exaggerate himself into a heroic figure. […] Faustus’s creation of a heroic
theatre in which he casts himself in a major role is sufficiently alluring for
5
it to linger imaginatively with readers or spectators, regardless whether the
play is concluded as a conventional morality or as radically questioning
the nature of heaven and hell. (Healy 1994: 5-7)
Beyond the ‘Marlowe Effect’, what makes the plays so fascinating are their characters.
Healy (cf. 1994: 56) points out that Marlowe’s characters are “vehicles for actions”, i.e.
they are not very psychologically complex. Marlowe was less interested in representing
individual subjectivity by showing the characters’ inward lives than he was in changing
the perception and depiction of traditional morality. Marlowe, thus, created characters
who faced challenges not in their inward lives, but in dubious surroundings. Thus, they
became mysterious characters, their exact meaning or relationship to contemporary mores
forming a puzzle for readers and audiences alike (cf. Healy 1994: 56).
Christopher Marlowe also created something new in his plays, which Stevie Simkin
(2000: 21f.) explains at the example of Marlowe’s famous play Tamburlaine:
Marlowe was also breaking new ground with [his famous play]
Tamburlaine. The Prologue is a bold proclamation, an advertisement for
Marlowe as theatrical pioneer. […] There are signs here of what we may
come to recognize as particular Marlovian traits as we become better
acquainted with his work: a good deal of scorn for the current standard of
the drama, impatience with its unadventurous style and an implied
criticism of the way it panders to lazy audience expectations.
(Simkin 2000: 21f.)
Russ McDonald explains the fascination with Marlowe’s language and style: Marlowe’s
energetic and imaginative style of exaggeration and eloquence increases his dramas’
vividness; his ability to manipulate through words made him one of the most popular
playwrights, as evidenced by contemporary playwrights copying his style (cf. McDonald
in Cheney 2004: 57f.).
One of the dramatists who surely used Christopher Marlowe’s plays as a model was
William Shakespeare, as will be shown in Sub-chapter 2.4 below.
2.3 William Shakespeare as a dramatist
The dramatic structure in Shakespeare’s plays is deeply based on psychology and the
depiction of the inner-struggle of characters to find themselves through self-examination.
6
Laurie E. Maguire (2004: 12) sees a certain “tripartite structure” in Shakespeare’s
comical plays: “an opening predicament, a central section of confusion and dissolving
identities, followed by restoration” (Maguire 2004: 12).
Maguire (cf. 2004: 13) adds that this principle applies not only to Shakespeare’s
comedies but also to the histories and tragedies. However, while comedy is characterized
by triumph and circularity (usually ending in marriage, symbolic of renewal), tragedy is
linear (usually ending with a generation dying out).
In many of Shakespeare’s plays, ‘love and madness’ play an important role, since love
and rationality do not agree with each other. As an example, Maguire (2004: 60)
mentions Midsummer Night’s Dream, in which the character Hermia chooses her
husband according to her feelings rather than her father’s wishes.
Maguire (cf. 2004: 180) argues that suffering, both mental and physical, can be seen as a
predominant theme in Shakespeare’s work. In this context, Maguire (2004: 180)
mentions some problems his characters must contend with: “loss of parents and children;
pre- and postmarital problems; unrequited love; anger and revenge; political coups; civil
war; foreign invasion and civic destruction; madness; family rupture”.
With regard to Hamlet, Maguire (2004: 180) suggests that Hamlet deals not only with
sadness and suffering, but also with remembrance. It is consequently necessary to define
a link between those two. Such a link is readily apparent at the beginning of the play
when Hamlet is confronted with memories he is unable to suppress.
When comparing Shakespeare’s plays, Maguire (cf. 2004: 192) argues that the
protagonists are largely unable to reveal their sadness, prevented either by internal
obstacles or the outside world.
Other common themes in Shakespeare’s plays are anger and revenge. Maguire (2004:
207-220) explains why these are so common: anger is a result of passionate feelings and
behavior, which both incite agitation and drama. The resulting burning tempers attract
readers and audiences. Anger is also frequently combined with sadness. However, many
7
characters choose forgiveness over revenge despite both their own and the
readers’/audience’s expectations.
2.4 The relationship between Marlowe and Shakespeare
As already mentioned in 2.1, Marlowe and Shakespeare were contemporaries. More is
known and discussed about Marlowe’s life than his work as a dramatist, with the reverse
being true for Shakespeare.
More information and speculation about Marlowe’s short life has survived to the present
day than about Shakespeare’s long one (cf. Wilson 1973: 1). Whereas Marlowe died at
the age of only twenty-nine years, Shakespeare reached fifty-two. As mentioned in Sub-
chapter 2.1, Marlowe’s thrilling life and – for his time – questionable mores fascinated
the public far more than the image of a “gentle Shakespeare”.
The enduring perception of Christopher Marlowe is of a person who lived dangerously,
both socially and intellectually. The playwright’s notoriety – due to his alleged work in
the Elizabethan Secret Service as well as his ‘dangerous’ character – has thus extended to
his characters, leading to a tradition of interpreting them with regard to Marlowe himself
rather than in their own dramatic right (cf. Healy 1994: 11).
Considering that these two great English writers had such different reputations, it is
interesting to look at if they had a relationship and, if so, of what type this relationship
was:
The exact relationship between the work of Marlowe and the work of
Shakespeare will remain in doubt forever. It is perfectly clear – and is,
indeed, universally admitted – that such a relationship did exist; and that
Marlowe, as Swinburne says, “guided Shakespeare into the right way of
work”. But speculation as to the precise nature of this relationship between
the two poets ranges from one extreme, which would assign the
shoemaker’s son of Canterbury a fair share of all the plays ordinarily
regarded as the work of the tanner’s son of Stratford, to another extreme,
which admits at most some slight borrowing and early imitation on
Shakespeare’s part. (Bakeless 1970: 205)
8
Bakeless (1970: 206) further speculates that Marlowe was responsible for many more
dramas than have survived, which is not an unreasonable assumption, considering the
sheer number of Elizabethan plays which have been lost.
To this day, authorship remains difficult to attribute: just as there is no definitive
contemporary record of Marlowe having written Tamburlaine, many of Shakespeare’s
earlier quartos have no mention of an authors’ name. While there is general agreement in
the scholarly world as to Marlowe’s authorship, the issue of Shakespeare’s authorship is
more difficult. Without the later quartos and folio editions which explicitly name
Shakespeare, many plays could only be tentatively identified as his work on the basis of
their style (cf. Bakeless 1970: 207).
Bakeless (1970: 207) theorizes that Marlowe’s works were probably written in co-
operation with other playwrights who might have autographed the plays. Regardless of
whether Marlowe is the sole author of the plays or not, the fact that Shakespeare was
familiar with Marlowe’s plays is definitely proven:
Several of their characters can be paired off, one against the other,
Shakespeare having obviously borrowed from Marlowe, since he had
barely begun to write for the stage at the time of Marlowe’s murder. Thus
Barabas and Shylock; Abigail and Jessica; Edward II and Richard II […].
[…] If Marlowe had never conceived these characters as he did,
Shakespeare’s characters would have been quite other than they are.
(Bakeless 1970: 208)
Further evidence of Shakespeare taking Marlowe’s work as a model is that he refers to
and quotes from Marlowe; echoes of Tamburlaine, Doctor Faustus, Edward the Second,
The Jew of Malta and many more can be found in Shakespeare’s plays (cf. Bakeless
1970: 208).
Not all similarities can be attributed to Shakespeare taking Marlowe as a model. While
there are more similarities in the works of these authors, those are primarily classic
Elizabethan customs or tropes which both authors used in similar circumstances: e.g.
“Hamlet’s mad grief at Ophelia’s grave is very like Tamburlaine’s rant after the death of
Zenocrate” (cf. Bakeless 1970: 212).
9
What can be said is that Shakespeare borrowed from Marlowe rather than vice versa;
obviously, Marlowe died before Shakespeare’s mature period (cf. Bakeless 1970: 212).
Bakeless (cf. 1970: 213) also states that Shakespeare might have used references to the
Italian philosopher and poet Machiavelli because of Marlowe and also discusses the
enduring rumour, albeit an unfounded one, of a friendship between Marlowe and
Shakespeare1.
The International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society (n.y.) states on its website that Marlowe
was:
the only writer with the proven ability to write poetry and dramatic verse
at a “Shakespearean” level. For two centuries, scholars have proclaimed
that Shakespeare learned how to write by studying Marlowe’s style.
Speculation that they were friends and shared manuscripts is prompted by
the striking similarity of Marlowe’s later works to Shakespeare’s early
works. (Marlowe-Shakespeare Society, n.y.)
However, Healy (1994: 2) compares the dramatic work of both authors and finds that
they are marked far more by their differences than their similarities:
Within the tragic, Marlowe discovers much entertainment. If, for
Shakespeare, all the world is a stage where characters have parts which
must be played, for Marlowe all the world is a circus. […] His characters
love theatricality for the showmanship. Where Shakespeare has Hamlet or
Prospero wanting to be directors of productions which will force their
players into some type of moral awareness, Marlowe’s showmen love their
dramas for the colour, daring, and roles they can give themselves […]
[i.e.] Faustus conjuring Helen for the scholars. (Healy 1994: 2)
Despite these differences in style, there are enduring claims of mixed authorship, and
even some who believe that Marlowe himself miraculously lived until (at least) 1623,
allowing him not only to write all of Shakespeare’s works himself, but also to edit the
First Folio (cf. Bakeless 1970: 216).
Overall then, the only thing certain about Shakespeare and Marlowe’s relationship is that
it has sparked centuries of speculation, little of which can be proven.
1 Tycho Mommsen, however, advances the theory that Marlowe and Shakespeare were unfriendly rivals. He thinks that
Marlowe must have resented Shakespeare’s adaptation of the mighty line and finds most of Shakespeare’s quotations
from Marlowe slightly derisive. Marlowe und Shakespeare, pp. 2-6 In: Bakeless 1970: 213.
10
3 Definition and history of soliloquies
From drama’s earliest beginnings until today, the use of the soliloquy in dramas around
the world is ubiquitous. The soliloquy played an essential role in the development of
drama (cf. Arnold 1911: 1). A definition of the soliloquy is given in Sub-chapter 3.1 and
the history of soliloquies is described in Sub-chapter 3.2.
3.1 Definition
Arnold (1922: 21) gives a definition of the soliloquy. In general, all soliloquies
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 […]. 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 intellectual,
as it may be dominated by the emotions, but never for an instant does it
suggest a knowledge of the audience, an implication from which the
verbal soliloquy cannot always be absolved. (Arnold 1911: 21)
Arnold (cf. 1911: 2f.) speaks of a soliloquy if the main character is the only one on stage,
or at least assumes to be only with himself.
Pfister (1993: 131f.) defines the soliloquy as follows:
The soliloquy is based primarily on a convention, an unspoken agreement
between author and receiver, which – unlike conditions prevailing in the
real world – allows a dramatic figure to think aloud and talk to itself. Of
course, thinking aloud and talking to oneself are phenomena that do occur
in the real world, though talking in this manner for too long is generally
thought to be a pathological deviation from the norm …. Thus, as a
dramatic convention, the soliloquy goes way beyond reality in so far as it
stylises a pathological extreme into a normal form of communicative
behaviour. … Thus, soliloquy is frequently used as a vehicle for
transmitting information on previous or future events in concentrated
form. … Finally, on top of all these mediating functions, the soliloquy
11
also serves several functions of a structural and formal kind: it can form a
bridge between two separate scenes, thus preventing the break in the
action caused by an empty stage; as an entrance or exit soliloquy it can
look forward to or summarise future developments in the plot, and in all
positions it can be used to slow down the action and create an element of
reflective distance. (Pfister 1993: 131f).
Based on what the character wants to express, Pfister (cf. 1993: 136) defines several
types of soliloquies including ‘lyrical soliloquy’, ‘soliloquy of reflection’, ‘soliloquy of
decision’, ‘soliloquy of planning’ and the ‘soliloquy of conflict’.
In addition to the soliloquies, there is another device that can express feelings and
thoughts of the protagonists, namely the ‘aside’, which has to be differentiated from the
soliloquy. Pfister (cf. 1993: 137ff) distinguishes between the ‘monological aside’ and the
‘aside ad spectatores’. While the ‘monological aside’ is similar to the soliloquy as the
character does not address any other character through it, it differs from the soliloquy in
so far as the character is not by himself and does not believe that he is alone. The ‘aside
ad spectatores’ can contain dialogue forms directly addressing the audience and thus has
a mediating effect. Typical characters giving an ‘aside ad spectatores’ are calculating
bandits or attendants (cf. Pfister 1993: 138).
To counter the argument that dramatic soliloquies depict an unnatural situation – one
does not ordinarily talk out loud to one’s self – Clemen (cf. 1987: 180) explains that the
scene can enhance the plausibility of soliloquies, since characters often reveal their
feelings at night when they are unable to sleep, exhausted or nervous of the future.
Clemen (cf. 1987: 187f.) further argues that through soliloquies the readers/audience are
given the illusion of intimacy with the character by being “taken into the speaker’s
confidence”. The readers/audience can gain information unavailable to the other
characters leading to a situation of ‘superior audience awareness’.
The soliloquy also functions as a marker of sincerity: with no other characters on stage to
fool, the audience/readers can assume the speaker to be telling the truth. Nevertheless, the
readers/audience can also know more than the character reveals within the soliloquy,
even having evidence that the speaker is mistaken or even lying to himself. Clemen (cf.
12
1987: 187f), thus, argues that the objectivity of soliloquies cannot be determined until the
end of a play.
3.2 History
As far as first occurrences of soliloquies are concerned, Arnold (1911) quotes Friedrich
Leo:
Friedrich Leo 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, […] ; while some of the oldest
lyrics of our tongue are in the form of soliloquies, - for example, “The
Song of Deor,” the mournful meditations of “The Wanderer” and the
strikingly dramatic monolog which is known as “The Banished Wife’s
Complaint”. (Arnold 1911: 5)
Thomas Healy (1992) refers back to Aristotle and his view of tragedies in the Middle
Ages and compares it to the Renaissance viewpoint: whereas Aristotle considers the
characters to be of less importance than the action, during the Middle Ages and the
Renaissance period, the importance of the characters increased. It is this shift in focus
from action to character that lead to the prominence of soliloquies and character
introspection in the Renaissance period. Thus, in the Renaissance period, soliloquies were
given special attention as they were perceived as an intimate moment that revealed the
protagonist’s innermost feelings (cf. Healy 1992: 43f).
Reader/audience expectations for soliloquies can be seen to have changed over time.
Whereas nowadays people most associate soliloquies with expressing emotions,
meditating and self-examination of the speakers, the form did not have this function
before Shakespeare. Before that, soliloquies served the same function as a chorus: telling
the readers/audience about the plot, exhorting or exposing certain things, giving
commentary (cf. Clemen 1987: 3f).
Comparing the Renaissance soliloquy to older versions of the form, Arnold explains that
they occur with more frequency, are longer and more polished. While Shakespeare is
mainly considered the most important user of soliloquies, Kyd and Marlowe were also
instrumental in the promotion and development of the form (cf. Arnold 1911: 9; 11; 12).
13
In this context, Arnold (1911) argues:
but of all the soliloquies preceding Shakespeare, those penned by
Christopher Marlowe are most significant in themselves, 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 sic Marlowe makes
no actual contribution, but he is master of both technic sic and subject.
He adds finish, and he infuses spirit. Therein lies the transformation. […]
Marlowe focuses the attention on the leading characters largely by means
of the soliloquy. (Arnold 1911: 12)
Arnold (cf. 1911: 13) adds that Christopher Marlowe was responsible for establishing the
soliloquy as a means of revealing a character’s innermost thoughts and feelings and for
making the form an “artistic unit”.
However, there has also been criticism of the soliloquy form. The first can be dated back
to the seventeenth and eighteenth century, when soliloquies were largely eliminated from
French tragedies on the grounds that they were unnatural and replaced by the more
realistic “dialogues with confidents”. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, the soliloquy
can be naturalized; the form was not entirely rejected, but critics did call for it to be used
as realistically as possible in the form of a short exclamation or conversation with oneself
(cf. Pfister 1993: 133).
14
4 Analysis
Chapter 4 analyses Doctor Faustus and Hamlet. Both, Sub-chapter 4.1 and Sub-chapter
4.2, are structured as follows: first, the plays’ sources and editions are discussed.
Secondly, the plot is summarized. Thirdly, the conception of the character and the
character are described, and both, Doctor Faustus and Hamlet, are compared to other
characters. Fourthly, the importance of the soliloquies is shown in context. For each
soliloquy the reasons for speaking and the content are analysed and the character
development is emphasized. The final part of the analysis deals with the themes in the
soliloquies, thus offering a deeper insight into the characters’ motivation for speaking.
4.1 Doctor Faustus
He that loves pleasure must for pleasure fall.
Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe: 5.2.1292
The quotation above encapsulates the fate of the protagonist of Christopher Marlowe’s
Doctor Faustus. Faustus, both a scholar and black magician, is on a quest for infinite
knowledge at enormous cost (cf. Bevington and Rasmussen, 1995: xii).
4.1.1 Sources and editions of Doctor Faustus
The story of Dr. Faustus was not originally Marlowe’s but dates back to the early 1500s:
stories of witchcraft and enchantment, wandering loose in men’s minds,
attached themselves in the early sixteenth century to a real-life Georg or
Johannes Faustus, scholar and reputed magician of no fixed abode. […]
after this man’s death – which gave rise to the most fantastic story of all
– his fabled doings were assembled in a ‘biography’ published in
Frankfurt in 1587”, which Marlowe seemed to have used as model for his
play. (Gill 1967: xiii).
Regarding this ‘biography’, Andrea Kunze (2008: 54) mentions the “Faustbuch by
Johann Spies published in 1587, the so called English Faustbook of 1592” noting that
2 All text passages in this section refer to the B-Text in: Marlowe, Christopher (1995). “Doctor Faustus”
1588(?). In: Oxford World’s Classics. Christopher Marlowe. Doctor Faustus and Other Plays (1995).
Eds. David Bevington and Eric Rasmussen. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 186-246.
15
Marlowe seems to have used not the original, but an English version of the text (Kunze
2008: 54).
There are two early editions of Marlowe’s play; they are described in detail by Roma Gill
(1967):
Two early texts, published within a few years of each other yet differing
widely, make Dr. Faustus a most complicated editorial problem. The
version now referred to as the A Text appeared in 1604 and was reprinted,
each time with a few minor changes, in 1609 and 1611. In 1616 another
version, the B Text, was published; this was reprinted five times before
1633. (Gill 1967: xiv)
As far as authorship is concerned, there is some speculation regarding which version is
the closest to Marlowe’s original, especially considering the fact that the first edition was
published in 1604, some time after Marlowe’s death:
The play which we think of as Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus is actually not
just by Marlowe, but by Marlowe and some other writers who collaborated
with him during his lifetime, or who amended and added to the text after
he had sold it to the acting company, perhaps even after his death.
(Mangan 1989: 22)
Doctor Faustus is a difficult play to categorize according to genre. Mangan (1989) argues
that it can be considered a morality play due to its plot:
A representative Everyman-figure starts out in innocence, meets with
various figures who lead him into temptation, from which he is finally
redeemed by divine grace. The essential pattern is the movement from
innocence to experience, and fall followed by redemption. The central
function is to celebrate the truth of the Christian message, and to show it at
work in the life of an archetypal human being. (Mangan 1989: 18)
Indeed, it is not only the structure and plot of Doctor Faustus which is typical of the
morality play; several characters are tropes of that genre, including: “The Good and Bad
Angels, the parade of the Seven Deadly Sins, the ‘tempters’ Valdes and Cornelius, the
figure of the Old Man in the last act, who offers Faustus the chance of repentance”.
However, the play can also be characterised as a tragedy of passion as well as heroic
tragedy. Faustus “is finally doomed by the destructiveness of his own emotions, passions,
desires or reactions” (Mangan, 1989: 19); he is someone “who manages to ascend in the
16
social hierarchy from a low-born man to a well-respected scholar at Wittenberg” (Kunze
2008: 54). It is just this type of heroic tragedy that was initiated by Marlowe’s
Tamburlaine (cf. Mangan 1989: 19).
4.1.2 Summary of Doctor Faustus
The protagonist of Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus is a determined and clever
German scholar who is unsatisfied with his life. Because Faustus believes he knows
everything, having studied all possible subjects except magic, he can be described as a
proud and arrogant young man. It is this arrogance that leads him to ignore all warnings
(some even from the devil himself) and sell his soul for twenty-four years of pleasure that
finally end with his own downfall and death.
4.1.3 Character conception of Doctor Faustus
Doctor Faustus is a ‘dynamic character’, a term which Pfister (1993: 177f.) explains as
follows: “Dynamic figures […] undergo a process of development in the course of the
text; their sets of distinguishing features change, either in a continuous process or a
disjointed series of jumps. […] [T]he figures in tragedies are [thus] often able – if too late
– to attain new levels of wisdom and new ideological positions”. Faustus can also be
described in relation to Pfister’s (1993) ideas about ‘round’ and ‘multidimensional
characters’:
a multidimensional figure is defined by a complex set of features taken
from the most disparate levels and may, for example, concern his or her
biographical background, psychological disposition, interpersonal
behaviour towards different people, the ways he or she reacts to widely
differing situations and his or her ideological orientation. Each figure-
perspective and each situation reveals new sides to a figure’s character,
with the result that his identity is revealed to the receiver as a
multidimensional whole with a wealth of different facets and
distinguishing characteristics. (Pfister 1993: 178f)
Thus, Faustus can also be defined as an ‘individual’. As Pfister (1993) goes on to explain,
“the intention underlying a figure conceived as an individual is to bring out the features
that are unique and contingent”. This is only possible by revealing many characteristics
17
that define the individual on every possible level, “appearance, speech, behaviour,
biography, etc.” (Pfister 1993: 180).
4.1.4 Character description of Doctor Faustus
Faustus, as a character, can be called an “overreacher”, as Harry Levin (1973) argues in
his book. Andrea Kunze (2008) defines the term “overreacher” as someone with a
“certain tendency towards striving for super-humanity” with “an immense will to reach
his goals and satisfy his desires”. Kunze (2008) goes on to argue that Faustus becomes
an “overreacher” through his dissatisfaction with empirical studies, his lust for endless
strength and prohibited wisdom, namely magic, and his lust for power (cf. Kunze 2008:
13f).
It can be argued that Marlowe used Icarus as a model for his play (cf. Keiper 2005: 396).
Keiper (2005) points out that Icarus was often used as a symbol of a failing “overreacher”
during the Renaissance and Baroque period (cf. Keiper 2005: 396). In Doctor Faustus,
the prologue uses the Icarus symbol of the “overreacher” (“Till, swoll’n with cunning of
a self-conceit, / His waxen wings did mount above his reach, / And, melting, heavens
conspired his overthrow.” Prol. 19ff) and thus foreshadows Faustus’ final fall (cf. Keiper
2005: 396).
Roma Gill (1967) cites Helen Gardner’s description of Faustus’ character as follows:
“From a proud philosopher, master of all human knowledge, to a trickster, to a slave of
phantoms, to a cowering wretch: that is a brief sketch of the progress of Dr. Faustus”.
(Gardner in Gill 1967: xxi).
Scenes in which Faustus reveals parts of his character that lie outside the soliloquies are
outlined and discussed below.
In scene 1.1, Faustus calls his friends Valdes and Cornelius to tell them that he wants to
know all about magic. In their conversation, Faustus rejects his previous fields of study
and harshly criticizes religion and theology without giving a clear reason for his dislike of
them (“Philosophy is odious and obscure; / Both law and physic are for petty wits; / ’Tis
magic, magic that hath ravished me.” 1.1.102ff). This shows that Faustus is ready to
18
change his attitude towards teaching his students as well as studying in general, which
can be seen in the following scene when he does not attend a lesson. It is thus possible to
determine character development: Faustus has transformed from a well-behaved scholar
into someone obsessed with supernatural magic to the point of neglecting his own
students or colleagues (“First Scholar: I wonder what’s become of Faustus, that was
wont / to make our schools ring with ‘sic probo’.” 1.2.1f).
The scholars fear that Faustus has turned to magic and hope that someone will steer him
away from the field of magic (“Second Scholar: But come, let us go and inform the
Rector. / It may be his grave counsel may reclaim him. – First Scholar: I fear me nothing
will reclaim him now” 1.2.34ff). These lines prove that Faustus’ colleagues realize his
impeding downfall long before he himself is aware of it. Whereas the students appear to
consider him fond of studying traditional subjects, Faustus’ affection for magic is has
already superceded his scholastic ambitions.
In order to sign his contract with Lucifer with his own blood, Faustus cuts his arm but is
at first prevented by his own body in scene 2.1: “Faustus: He writes But
Mephistopheles, / My blood congeals, and I can write no more. - Mephistopheles: I’ll
fetch thee fire to dissolve it straight.” (2.1.61ff). This is another opportunity for Faustus
to repent and to turn back towards God, however, his eagerness to perform magic
distracts him from this sign. Thus, Faustus can be considered someone who does allow
himself to think about his decisions, but only wants to satisfy his lust for power.
Yet again, Faustus shows himself to be unafraid of hell in his conversation with
Mephistopheles, appearing conceited and naïve (“I think hell’s a fable.” 2.1.127), which
are character traits inconsistent with the image of a well-behaved scholar. As Faustus
ignores Mephistopheles’ warnings about the true nature of hell and suffering, preferring
his own theories, he appears strong-minded and set in his opinions. One might argue that,
beyond character development, this shows a certain irony in that Faustus, who has not
only studied theology but is now presented with the horrors of hell, persists in his desire
to turn away from God.
19
Faustus starts pestering Mephistopheles with a myriad of questions, angering the devil by
referring to God. Faustus is now in the most desperate situation so far in 2.3. Whereas he
appeared motivated and steadfast in his decision previously, he now seems to listen to his
good conscience and cries for Christ, the Saviour, for the first time (“O Christ, my
Saviour, my Saviour” 2.3.81). However, Lucifer appears and directly tells Faustus that
his soul is already condemned and that he should never think nor speak of Christ or God
again (cf. 2.3). Thus, it seems that, although Faustus has declared his devotion to the
devil, his weak moments, in which he thinks of God, have increased throughout the
course of the play. One can then argue that he has become more thoughtful and worried
now, a state of mind that Lucifer tries to change by showing the seven deadly sins. Again,
Faustus allows himself to be moved by outward show (“O, how this sight doth delight my
soul!” 2.3.154), which proves that he is easily distracted from his depression. However,
those moments are only short-lived and it remains to be seen when Faustus will return to
his questioning.
After having used their magical abilities at several courts, Faustus and Mephistopheles
return home at the beginning of the fourth act. Apparently, word of Faustus’ skill has
spread and he is invited to the German Emperor and asked to show some of his tricks.
Faustus here suddenly shows a certain insecurity beneath his self-confident façade (“I’ll
make you feel something anon, if my art fail me / not.-” 4.1.90f). While he has achieved
fame, he still questions his magical power, perhaps realizing that they have declined
throughout the course of the play. Whereas he dreamed of endless magical power when
agreeing to the pact with the devil, it now seems as if Mephistopheles and Faustus have
mainly played funny tricks and that their magic is simply deception. Faustus has steadily
been changing from a well-behaved scholar to an absurd little boy whose only ability is
to play tricks and deceive people. Michael Mangan (1989) confirms this argument: “We
have not, after all, seen him do very much magic up to this point; rather, we have seen
magic done to him” (Mangan 1989: 60).
The last court that Faustus and Mephistopheles visit is the Duke of Vanholt’s in scene
4.6. This shows that the importance of his hosts, as well as the power of his magic,
declines throughout the play. At the beginning of his pact with the devil, Faustus visited
20
the Pope; he is now playing tricks at the court of a minor prince. Michael Mangan (1989)
argues that “Faustus has gained nothing from his contract with the Devil, and his great
ambitions add up to little more than the ability to impress a few fools more gullible than
himself” (Mangan 1989: 66). However, it is possible to argue that Faustus does not
realize his declining power or the declining importance of his hosts. This shows that he
has changed his character inasmuch as that he has lost sight of his former ambitions, now
being content with simpler games. This confirms once more that Faustus developed from
a well-behaved scholar to a person who was greedy for power and finally became a
miserable character who has lost sight of his former goals.
Having realized that his end is near, Faustus begs Mephistopheles to fulfill one last wish
in scene 5.1, namely to see Helen of Troy once more. Faustus, now completely
bewildered, attempts to regain his soul through an illusion (“Come, Helen, come, give me
my soul again” 5.1.97). It can be argued that, at this point of the play, his actions and
decisions finally begin to prey on Faustus’ conscience but, instead of giving up or
repenting, he continues to try to save himself. Besides, this line proves that “when
troublesome thoughts of repentance afflict him, he seeks diversion” (Mangan 1989: 81).
Suddenly, Lucifer, Mephistopheles and Beelzebub appear and the readers/audience
realize that Faustus’ last hour is at hand. While the devils have already arranged
everything to bring Faustus to hell, he reveals his sins to his fellow scholars (cf. 5.2). It
now seems as if Faustus has accepted his fate and that it is too late to repent (“But
Faustus’ offence can ne’er be pardoned.” 5.2.43). He regrets his pact with the devil and
appears nostalgic for his former state:
And what wonders I have done, all Germany can / witness, yea, all the
world, for which Faustus hath lost both / Germany and the world, yea,
heaven itself-heaven, the seat of / God, the throne of the blessed, the
kingdom of joy-and must / remain in hell for ever. Hell, O, hell for ever!
Sweet friends, what / shall become of Faustus, being in hell for ever?
(5.2.48ff)
However, it is also possible to argue that Faustus is only afraid of hell, rather than truly
regretful of his past actions, and thus his repentance cannot be taken seriously. He might
21
also have realized his declining importance and respectability and be in the grips of self-
pity.
4.1.5 Characterization through other characters
In the following, text passages in which Doctor Faustus’s character is revealed through,
or in comparison with, other characters in the play are outlined. In particular, Doctor
Faustus is characterized through the Chorus and Mephistopheles.
Faust is characterized through the chorus. The play starts with the appearance of the
chorus, who introduces the protagonist, Doctor Faustus and reveals that he was born to a
poor family (“Now is he born, of parents base of stock” Prol. 11) but has become a
successful scholar (“That shortly he was graced with doctor’s name, / Excelling all, and
sweetly can dispute” Prol. 16f). Thus, Faustus is introduced as an individual who worked
very hard to achieve his current position.
However, the readers/audience are also told that Faustus is bored with his life, feeling
that he knows everything and that no challenges remain for him (“Till, swoll’n with
cunning of a self-conceit, / His waxen wings did mount above his reach, / And, melting,
heavens conspired his overthrow. Prol. 19ff).
Thus, the chorus anticipates and indicates that Faustus will agree to sign a pact with the
devil and finally sell his soul (“For, falling to a devilish exercise” Prol. 22). These lines
allow the readers/audience to imagine that the play will end sadly and thus “it
foreshadows the hero’s tragic downfall, which might influence the audience’s attitude
towards Faustus in a slightly negative way” as Kunze (2008: 55). claims. Furthermore,
the prologue as a whole, considering its foreshadowing function, provides ‘superior
audience awareness’, which Pfister (1993) defines as follows:
From its position of superior awareness, the audience is able to recognize
the discrepancies between the levels of awareness in the individual
dramatic figures. It is therefore consciously aware of the ambiguities of
every situation, and is thus in a position to judge to what extent the
figures’ differing assessments of a given situation deviate from the facts.
(Pfister 1993: 51)
22
At the beginning of the third act, the chorus appears again and tells the readers/audience
about Faustus’ experiences leading up to Faustus and Mephistopheles being in Rome at
the Pope’s court. Again, the chorus adds further information to the readers/audience’s
advantage. Faustus is losing remaining relation to God and religion in Rome; instead of
talking seriously to the Pope, they play several funny, blasphemous tricks on him while
being invisible (cf. 3.1). Thus, the meeting can be defined as ironic from a modern point
of view. However, Mangan explains “to an English Protestant audience in the late
sixteenth century, of course, the Pope was a kind of Antichrist” (Mangan 1989: 61). He
continues and argues that “Faustus’s ungodliness is shown, but in such a way as to keep
the audience cheering for him” (Mangan 1989: 61).
As far as the chorus is concerned, it can be argued that “the Chorus of the prologue and
epilogue moralizes about Faustus’s downfall, but the Chorus in the middle of the play
seems to take part in the pleasure, and to identify himself with Faustus” (Mangan 1989:
60). Furthermore, the acts 3 and 4 “are filled with practical jokes and farcical routines,
and are comparatively lacking in the more complex arguments and ironies which
predominated in Acts I and II, and which will re-surface in Act V” as Mangan (1989: 61)
claims and which he describes as an “argument that the action mirrors Faustus’s own
debasement” (Mangan 1989: 67).
In scene 1.3, Faustus believes himself to be more powerful than Mephistopheles because,
although the devil’s delegate tries to prevent him from turning away from God, Faustus
goes so far as to offer his soul to Lucifer in exchange for twenty-four years of getting
everything he wants (“Say he surrenders up to him his soul, / So he will spare him four-
and-twenty years, / Letting him live in all voluptuousness, / Having thee ever to attend on
me, / To give me whatsoever I shall ask” 1.3.88ff). What remains unclear is why the
former cleric Faustus wants to turn away from God and enter into a pact with the devil
without considering the negative consequences.
So far, only his greed for power and the unknown can be considered his motivation.
Thus, a character change from being a law abiding scholar to someone who is greedy for
power can be observed. Furthermore, whereas Faustus seemed to believe in his own
23
ability to achieve anything through studying, he is now prepared to sell his soul for
power, which proves that he has completely changed his attitude.
The subplot of Wagner and the scholars, Robin, Dick, etc. are “mirror scenes” (cf. Keiper
2005) that provide a comedic reflection of the main plot (eg. 1.4 with Wagner and Robin,
the Clown). As far as Faustus’ characterization is concerned, they thus illustrate that
every serious side of Faustus has a trivial mirror version.
4.1.6 Doctor Faustus’ soliloquies
On his website, Naeem (2010) describes different uses of soliloquies in Doctor Faustus:
Whereas the first soliloquy is a fine summary of the protagonist’s former intellectual life
and presents different ideas of things that have happened in the past, Faustus also reveals
intimate feelings and fears in his other soliloquies as the following quotation points out:
In Doctor Faustus we have also some very significant soliloquies that take
us deep into the innermost recesses of an inordinately ambitious soul
sometimes revealing his dreams of becoming ‘a mighty god’ by mastering
the black art of magic, sometimes showing the troubled waverings in his
mind or the raging of conflict between passion and conscience in his soul;
and in the end it wonderfully reveals the different moods and deep anguish
of a terror-stricken soul. (Naeem 2010)
Faustus agrees to a pact with the devil, who will give him endless magical power in
return for his soul. At this point, Faustus does not appear to be someone who is strong
and unbelievably clever, but rather impulsive and easily mislead. This proves that his
intellect becomes clouded by both supernatural temptation and by his own ambition.
During the course of the play it seems as if Faustus does not realize the full implications
of his deal with the devil, as he does not appear to fear hell or damnation. Because he is
used to achieving everything he wants and so far has not had any setbacks, he treats even
the bartering of his immortal soul as a game.
Towards the end of the play, Faustus has largely lost his scholarly nature and appears far
more like a schoolboyish prankster. It is not until Faustus’ final soliloquy that he seems to
regain his initial seriousness.
24
In the course of the play, only Faustus’ last soliloquy might show any real character
development although it is too late then; Faustus’ last soliloquy is considered to be one of
the most brilliant parts in English literature. Not only the power of lyric and emotions is
apparent but also the amount of fantasy as well as poetic diction define Marlowe as one
of the most gifted poets and dramatists in the time before Shakespeare (cf. Naeem 2010).
4.1.7 Analysis of Doctor Faustus’ soliloquies
The following analysis shows what Doctor Faustus’ soliloquies reveal about his inner
mind and how they contribute to his character development.
4.1.7.1 “Settle thy studies, Faustus, and begin / To sound the depth of that thou wilt
profess” (1.1.1-62)
After the reader/audience has received a detached characterization of Faustus from the
chorus in the prologue, Faustus himself provides a subjective self-description in the form
of his first soliloquy. In it, Faustus reveals that he enjoys studying, he actually orders
himself to stop and think of what he still wants to achieve (“Settle thy studies, Faustus,
and begin / To sound the depth of that thou wilt profess” 1.1.1f). Thus, he appears to be
someone who has worked very hard for his success and still wants to achieve more,
letting the readers/audience assume that he is very determined and ambitious. Also, as
Faustus addresses himself in the third person from the first line: “Settle thy studies,
Faustus” (1.1.1), he conveys the impression that he is very distant and reserved even
towards himself.
Faustus reveals that he has studied and mastered several fields, including theology and
‘analytics’, and that those fields no longer present a challenge to his mind. Faustus is
highly motivated to learn about other fields (“Having commenced, be a divine in show, /
Yet level at the end of every art, / And live and die in Aristotle’s works” 1.1.3ff). The
revelation that Faustus is a theologian reinforces his guilt in signing a pact with the devil
later on in the play.
Throughout this first soliloquy, Faustus confirms that he has achieved all his goals in
studying (“Then read no more; thou hast attained that end”, 1.1.10). Thus, the following
25
line shows that Faustus is confident and knows that he is an exceedingly clever man (“A
greater subject fitteth Faustus’ wit” 1.1.11). Therefore, he appears to be someone who
accepts his character and personality and is very proud.
Not only is Faustus done with theology and analytics, i.e. philosophy, he also pretends to
know everything about the fields of medicine and law. He lists his wonderful scholarly
achievements, but, although Faustus is annoyed that his success has not yet brought him
happiness, he does not fall into a state of depression or melancholy, but tries to find a
new field to study.
Thus, he appears to have a steadfast character that relies on his own abilities and seems to
trust himself rather than other people. Moreover, his thoughts and feelings appear in an
organized order as he runs through the possible fields of study systematically to make
sure that he will make the right decision. Thus, he appears to be very rational rather than
emotional. The temptation to study supernatural knowledge can first be seen in the
following line when he expresses his distaste with being just human (“Yet art thou still
but Faustus, and a man”1.1.21). Through this line, he indirectly expresses his wish to
learn something forbidden and beyond the conventional studies
Debating, Faustus makes some biblical references which anticipate how the plot will
continue (“The reward of sin is death? That’s hard” 1.1.39). Whereas the
readers/audience have got to know Faustus as a law-abiding cleric and scholar through
the chorus’ and his own descriptions, it now seems as if he is about to change his
character and personality and experience something sinful. He even immediately infers
that “Why then belike we must sin, / And so consequently die” 1.1.44f. These lines
anticipate Faustus’ later lack of scruples.
Thus, it is already possible to identify a character development in this first soliloquy:
going from being a law-abiding scholar to someone who wants to experience something
supernatural. The only apparent reasons for this change that can be identified now are his
boredom and his obsessive quest to know everything.
26
The following lines lead him to consider a new field he feels to be divine: “These
metaphysics of magicians / And necromantic books are heavenly, / Lines, circles, letters,
characters- / Ay, these are those that Faustus most desires.” 1.1.49ff. He believes that if
he adopts this discipline, he will be King of the world: “Emperors and kings / Are but
obeyed in their several provinces, / But his dominion that exceeds in this / Stretcheth as
far as doth the mind of man. / A sound magician is a demigod.” 1.1.57ff. Faustus, here,
appears to be highly power-hungry as the lines imply that his desire to study black magic
is not only caused by scientific interest, but also due to materialistic ambition.
In concluding his soliloquy, Faustus’ initial unhappiness and dissatisfaction are eased as
he has finally found a subject he considers worth his time and energy. His boredom and
his belief that all people are sinners and thus condemned (“Why then belike we must sin,
/ And so consequently die.” 1.1.44f) have led him to the opinion that black magic is not
morally reprehensible but the only way to become a ‘demigod’, which has become
Faustus’ ultimate aim. The readers/audience realize that Faustus is a person who is full of
commitment and zeal: “Here tire my brains to get a deity” (1.1.62). Despite all of this,
Faustus does appear neither totally conceited nor fully unlikeable to the readers/audience.
Thus far, the predominant reason why Faustus turns away from God towards black magic
is his lust to become king of the world. It is not until scene 5.2, however, that the
readers/audience learn that Mephistopheles had influenced Faustus at that very moment
(“When thou took’st the book / To view the Scriptures, then I turned the leaves / And led
thine eye.” 5.2.93ff). It is difficult to limit the play to just one interpretation as Michael
Mangan argues: “is Doctor Faustus about a man who is tricked into damnation by the
agents of the Devil – ‘manipulated like a puppet’, as one critic has described him? Or is it
a play about a man whose responsibility for his downfall lies solely with himself?”
(Mangan 1989: 86).
Faustus’ first soliloquy is interrupted by the appearance of Wagner, Faustus’ servant, as
well as by the appearance of the good and bad angels. The angels, however, could be
seen as parts of Faustus since they are no real people but rather manifestations of his
good and bad conscience. Therefore, it is possible to consider Faustus’ moments when he
is alone on stage only with the good and bad angels as ‘soliloquies’.
27
Thus, Faustus’ first soliloquy can be defined not only as a ‘soliloquy of self-introduction’
but also as a ‘soliloquy of reflection’ and a ‘soliloquy of decision’ (cf. Pfister 1993: 136).
Moreover, what becomes apparent when looking at Faustus’ first soliloquy is the fact that
he reflects about and ponders certain issues, is then capable of making a plan and seems
to put it into action, which seems to indicate that he is a rational character.
4.1.7.2 “How am I glutted with conceit of this!” (1.1.77-98)
Faustus is now completely obsessed with studying the field of magic but suddenly the
Good and the Bad Angel appear and try to influence him, to either stop studying or urge
him on. Both want to influence him and at first he seems to be entirely unsure of what to
do but then he reminds himself of all the wonderful things he will be able to experience
as soon as he has expertise in the field of magic and confirms his decision:
How am I glutted with conceit of this! / Shall I make spirits fetch me what
I please? / Resolve me of all ambiguities? / Perform what desperate
enterprise I will? / I’ll have them fly to India for gold, / Ransack the ocean
for orient pearl, / And search all corners of the new-found world / For
pleasant fruits and princely delicates. (1.1.77-84)
These lines show that Faustus indulges in fantasies and visualizes all the power and
wealth he believes he will gain through black magic. On the one hand, he can easily
motivate himself and works for his success. On the other hand, however, he is easily
influenced by power, wealth and material things.
Thus, it is now apparent that Faustus’ second soliloquy functions to motivate himself to
continue studying magic as well as to visualize his future power. It seems as if the Bad
Angel does not really need much persuasiveness because Faustus is already obsessed
with his visions of the future.
Faustus now appears to be someone who is power-hungry and does not think a lot about
others around him nor about possible negative consequences of his decisions; Faustus
only lists the incredible possibilities the field of magic will open up for him:
I’ll have them read me strange philosophy / And tell the secrets of all
foreign kings. / I’ll have them wall all Germany with brass / And make
28
swift Rhine circle fair Wittenberg. / I’ll have them fill the public schools
with silk, / Wherewith the students shall be bravely clad. / I’ll levy soldiers
with the coin they bring / And chase the Prince of Parma from our land, /
And reign sole king of all the provinces; / Yea, stranger engines for the
burnt of war / Than was the fiery keel at Antwerp bridge / I’ll make my
servile spirits to invent. (1.1.85-96)
In this part of the soliloquy, Faustus shows that, beyond his lust for power, he also
considers benefiting others, especially his fellow students. This shows that studying is
probably the most important thing to him and also indicates that he desires not only
success and knowledge for their own sake, but also for the fame and power they can
bring him. Thus, he now appears to believe in his ability to reach a goal without relying
on others.
Faustus’ determination as well as intention to study the field of magic is also highlighted
and mirrored by the repetition of the phrase “I’ll have them…” which emerges four times
in the soliloquy along with the phrases “I’ll levy…” and “I’ll make…”.
One confusing aspect of the current situation, however, is why a scholar and philosopher,
who believes in studying and reading books, gets so easily directed to a field that is in no
sense similar to what he has ever studied before, namely magic. It is likely that it is the
unfamiliarity and “improvable” nature of magic that sparks Faustus’ fascination. Yet, it
has to be pointed out that the nature of magic might not be “improvable” as Faustus
himself can be seen as proof that magic works.
Faustus appears confident in his ability to master the art, albeit with supernatural help,
when he speaks about “spirits” he will call to his aid (“I’ll make my servile spirits to
invent” 1.1.96). This line also further underlines Faustus’ desire for power.
In his second soliloquy, Faustus allows his fantasies full bent, which is why it can be
considered a ‘soliloquy of reflection’ as well as a ‘soliloquy of planning’ (cf. Pfister
1993: 136).
29
4.1.7.3 “Now that the gloomy shadow of the night, / Longing to view Orion’s drizzling
look” (1.3.1-31)
Faustus’ reason to speak his third soliloquy is to calm down his own fears and to finally
take action and practice the magic he has shown himself to be so fascinated with. This
scene can be defined as a conjuration-scene as well as an eavesdropping-scene since
Faustus is unaware that Lucifer and the four devils are observing him.
Faustus, determined to conjure the devil himself, motivates himself to begin:
Now that the gloomy shadow of the night, / Longing to view Orion’s drizzling
look, / Leaps from th’Antarctic world unto the sky / And dims the welkin with her
pitchy breath, / Faustus, begin thine incantations, / And try if devils will obey thy
hest, / Seeing thou hast prayed and sacrificed to them. 1.3.1ff.
Because Faustus’ first attempt at magic is already to conjure a powerful devil in the dead
of the night, he appears as someone strong and powerful who does not hesitate but wants
to achieve everything immediately. Although he appears determined to take action
himself, without the need for further outside temptation, there is still some uncertainty in
him about whether his conjuring will be successful (“And try if devils will obey thy hest”
1.3.6). Faustus continues to directly address himself in the imperative “Then fear not,
Faustus, to be resolute” (1.3.14), which proves his determination and will.
This soliloquy leads to Faustus’ invocation (itself a soliloquy) and continues after
Mephistopheles, Lucifer’s delegate, has appeared and been sent away. After
Mephistopheles’ appearance Faustus is even more convinced of magic; he believes
himself to be in an even higher position than the devil (“I see there’s virtue in my
heavenly words. / Who would not be proficient in this art? / How pliant is this
Mephistopheles, / Full of obedience and humility! / Such is the force of magic and my
spells” 1.3.27ff). Having known no setbacks so far, he appears unafraid and confident.
In this soliloquy, Faustus conjures a spirit and reflects on his ability to do so. Thus, it can
be partly defined as ‘soliloquy of reflection’ (cf. Pfister 1993: 136).
30
4.1.7.4 “Had I as many souls as there be stars, / I’d give them all for Mephistopheles”
(1.3.100-112)
Faustus is overwhelmed that he has been able to invoke the devil or his delegate. In his
conversation with Mephistopheles, he demands that Lucifer’s delegate should accompany
him wherever he goes and also help him to achieve every magical wish he has (cf. 1.3).
This proves that Faustus has changed his attitude from only believing in his own ability
to achieve his wishes and desires through studying to receiving help from the devil’s
delegate. Although Mephistopheles seemingly tries to prevent Faustus from turning
towards Lucifer by telling the story of how he himself got to hell, he is not intimidated by
it, but still eager to work with the devil (“There is no chief but only Beelzebub, / To
whom Faustus doth dedicate himself. / This word ‘damnation’ terrifies not me, / For I
confound hell in Elysium” 1.3.54ff). This shows that he is not easily intimidated but
follows through with his plan once he has conceived it in his mind.
Faustus speaks his fourth soliloquy after he has offered Mephistopheles his soul, who has
just left in order to discuss this pact with Lucifer. The pact states that, in return for his
soul, Faustus demands twenty-four years of pleasure, the fulfillment of all his wishes, and
Mephistopheles as his servant and companion. Faustus praises Mephistopheles,
hyperbolically claiming that if he had more souls, he would sell all those for
Mephistopheles (“Had I as many souls as there be stars, / I’d give them all for
Mephistopheles.” 1.3.100f).
Faustus, here, shows neither shock nor fear in response to Mephistopheles’ recent
description of an all-encompassing hell but is only driven by cupidity. Again it seems as
if he changes his character inasmuch as he no longer believes in the success of solely
studying magic: he believes that selling his soul to the devil is the only way to achieve his
goals. Not even Mephistopheles can discourage him from forming this pact; and it is
exactly this which inspires him. The close connection between Faustus and
Mephistopheles is palpable and the readers/audience realize that Faustus already sees
Mephistopheles as his friend. Nevertheless, Faustus lives in his own world and does what
he wants, when he wants without fear. Mangan (1989) characterizes Mephistopheles as
31
an “agent who intervenes at crucial moments to guide a course which Faustus has already
chosen” (Mangan 1989: 87). This statement also correlates with the argument mentioned
above in the discussion of the first soliloquy that it is primarily Faustus himself who is
responsible for his tragic downfall, but that the downfall cannot be attributed to just one
factor.
In the following lines Faustus praises Mephistopheles further and mentions what things
he will be able to achieve only through the help of Lucifer’s delegate (“By him I’ll be
great emperor of the world / And make a bridge through the moving air / To pass the
ocean; with a band of men / I’ll join the hills that bind the Afric shore / And make that
country continent to Spain, / And both contributory to my crown.” 1.3.102ff). Faustus, in
contrast to his previously being a compliant scholar, now appears as a megalomaniac; he
has now lost every connection with reality and absolutely believes that he will become
king of the world with Mephistopheles’ help: “The emperor shall not live but by my
leave, / Nor any potentate of Germany” (1.3.108f.) Faustus’ character clearly changes due
to the corruptive nature of power and wealth; thus, the saying that money ruins character
perfectly fits this situation.
Faustus closes this soliloquy by saying that he needs to study magic lore more intensively
until Mephistopheles returns, again praising Mephistopheles. Faustus is impressed by
Mephistopheles tempting him with offering the pact to Lucifer (“Now that I have
obtained what I desired, / I’ll live in speculation of this art / Till Mephistopheles return
again” 1.3.110ff). Once again, Faustus does not show any fear of hell nor remorse for
turning away from God but only gleefully anticipates gaining power and wealth.
As in the second soliloquy, here too Faustus allows his fantasies full bent, but also puts
his plans into action, proving himself a practical as well as theoretically inclined man.
Thus, the soliloquy can be defined as ‘soliloquy of reflection’ as well as ‘soliloquy of
planning’ similar to the second one (cf. Pfister 1993: 136).
32
4.1.7.5 “Now, Faustus, must thou needs be damned?” (2.1.1-13)
Faustus, who has appeared completely steadfast in his resolve to enter the pact, now
ponders the negative ramifications of his actions for the first time. Now alone in his
study, his determination to turn away from God towards the devil begins to waver (cf.
2.1). The whole scene is of particular importance since Faustus ultimately agrees to the
pact with the devil, which will seal his fate – at least in his own mind (cf. Keiper 2005:
789).
However, no incidents that might have led him to question the pact have occurred. The
only possible explanation for his current desperate state is that he is nervously awaiting
Lucifer’s answer. More importantly, Faustus still feels some religious emotions and
expresses regret that he did not think much about the consequences the pact would entail,
and a desire for redemption. This entire soliloquy is characterized by Faustus’ vacillation
between his inclinations towards God and the devil (“Now, Faustus, must thou needs be
damned? / Canst thou not be saved?” 2.1.1f).
Coming to the conclusion that, as he is already condemned due to his prior actions and no
longer loved by God, he changes his mood from motivation to self-pity. Yet he does not
indulge in self-deprecation, but rather finds ways to justify himself and to steady his
resolve:
What boots it then to think on God or heaven? / Away with such vain
fancies, and despair! / Despair in God and trust in Belzebub. / Now go not
backward, Faustus, be resolute. / Why waver’st thou? O, something
soundeth in mine ear: / ‘Abjure this magic, turn to God again!’ / Why, he
loves thee not. (2.1.3ff)
Faustus’ uncertainty here leaves himself open to outside influence, which is the reason
why the Good and the Bad Angel appear directly after the soliloquy. This uncertainty can
also be seen in that he directly addresses himself with “Faustus, be resolute”, showing
that, despite his desire to be of steadfast character, he feels the need for reassurance.
Also, his equivocating argument that it is God’s lack of love for him, rather than his own
sin, which predicates his damnation, shows that he is too proud to admit his own
mistakes. Apparently, he is too proud and not yet able to admit any mistakes in his life.
33
However, after a few moments of doubts, he makes the decision to continue on his
chosen path, rejecting his earlier fears (“The god thou serv’st is thine own appetite, /
Wherein is fixed the love of Belzebub. / To him I’ll build an altar and a church, / And
offer lukewarm blood of new-born babes” 2.1.10ff). Thus, Faustus appears as someone
who adheres to a cause no matter how pressing the arguments against it may be, which
shows him to be stubborn. Furthermore, Faustus cements his course against God by
indulging in blasphemy, especially in the last line in which he declares his intention to
establish a Satanic altar and to indulge in human sacrifice. Considering the fact that, in
Faustus’ first soliloquy, his dismissal of God has been dealt with – as he believes his
damnation is already certain, he now considers any attempt at redemption to be moot.
Overall, this soliloquy can be defined as a ‘soliloquy of reflection’ (cf. Pfister 1993: 136)
as Faustus again reflects and ponders his options, makes a decision, plans in detail and
finally carries out his intentions.
Faustus’ moment of inner conflict is seen by the Good and the Bad Angels as an
opportunity to influence him yet again; the Bad Angel succeeds by promising Faustus
power and wealth (cf. 2.1), further foregrounding the increasingly materialistic side of
Faustus’ character. Also, it is important to note here that the Good and Bad Angel “add,
not extra information, but an extra perspective” and also “seem to be an emblem of what
goes on inside Faustus’s mind” (Mangan 1989: 36; 52), which supports the previous
argument that the angels can be considered manifestations of Faustus’ conscience.
4.1.7.6 “Wealth? / Why, the seigniory of Emden shall be mine” (2.1.22-27)
The reason for Faustus speaking this soliloquy is to praise Mephistopheles again and
reassure himself that offering his soul is the right decision. While, as shown above, the
Bad Angel has encouraged him, Faustus seems determined enough in his own right:
Wealth? / Why, the seigniory of Emden shall be mine. / When
Mephistopheles shall stand by me, / What power can hurt me? Faustus,
thou art safe; / Cast no more doubts. Mephistopheles, come, / And bring
glad tidings from great Lucifer. / Is’t not midnight? Come,
Mephistopheles! 2.1.22ff.
34
Here, Faustus shows his high opinion of Mephistopheles, who seems to be his greatest
temptation, despite, apparently, not having had direct influence over Faustus so far. The
above-quoted lines also indicate that Faustus already considers Mephistopheles to be his
protector or even his friend.
What becomes further apparent in this as well as the previous soliloquy is that as soon as
Faustus ponders his situation and the decision he has made, he immediately digresses
from the seriousness both entail and rather prefers to think about positive things and the
power and wealth he considers to gain through the pact with the devil. It can thus be
argued that Faustus has changed his character from a scholar who believed only in
studying to someone who behaves naïvely and prefers to be distracted from the
supernatural.
Furthermore, it seems as if Faustus has completely changed his attitude towards what is
important for him; whereas his friends and studying was the most important thing for him
at the beginning of the play, he now seems to be easily influenced and distracted by
material things, and thus appears less as adult and more as school boy.
Whereas Faustus reflects on his decision in the previous soliloquy and, albeit briefly,
considers the possibility of negative consequences, he is too entranced by the enticements
of the supernatural to change his mind. Thus, this soliloquy can be defined as a ‘soliloquy
of decision’ as Faustus reaffirms his decision to form a pact with the devil (cf. Pfister
1993: 136).
4.1.7.7 “My heart is hardened; I cannot repent” (2.3.18-30)
After having received a book with all incantations, the Good and the Bad Angel appear to
Faustus again. The Good Angel still tries to persuade Faustus from turning back towards
God, the Bad Angel disagrees because Faustus has already made his decision to turn
towards the devil a long time ago. It can thus be argued that Faustus is responsible
himself for the situation he is in now but is too proud and too naïve to admit any
mistakes.
35
However, after the angels have disappeared, Faustus falls into a state of questioning the
pact again but believes that it is too late to repent. Although the Good Angel presents
him with many occasions to repent, Faustus is not able to and always sticks to the devil,
which proves him again to be someone who, once obliged to a certain thing, does not
change his attitude towards it. Nevertheless, he still has some doubtful moments, even if
they are only short-lived.
Although Mephistopheles is present, Faustus’ speech should be defined as a soliloquy
rather than as an aside because Mephistopheles is invisible to Faustus. Faustus’ reason to
speak is to reject the possibility of repentance (“My heart is hardened; I cannot repent. /
Scarce can I name salvation, faith, or heaven. / Swords, poison, halters, and envenomed
steel / Are laid before me to dispatch myself” 2.3.18ff). While these words could be
considered a confession of guilt, Faustus is too proud to admit his wrongdoing. It is
possible to argue that this shows a character change inasmuch as his greed has led him to
possibly the first wrong decision of his life. What remains open to speculation, however,
is where Faustus’ materialistic attitude comes from: on the one hand, it may have been
influenced by Mephistopheles, on the other hand, it may have been inherent in his
character.
While Faustus does briefly acknowledge the hopelessness of his situation, one can see the
distracting influence of the Bad Angel and Mephistopheles in the line: “had not sweet
pleasure conquered deep despair” (2.3.23). This can be seen as yet another instance of
Faustus wilfully ignoring the negative. Another interpretation of the passage, along with
the line “And long ere this I should have done the deed” (2.3.22), is the one offered by
Michael Mangan (1989):
This pairing of opposites is important, reminding us that the Faustus that
we see between the signing of the contract and the termination of the term
of his mortality is anything but blind to his peril. Deep despair, it is
suggested here, is his normal state, tempered only by sweet pleasure. His
new state is one of extremes. (Mangan 1989: 56)
It can thus be argued that Faustus has changed his character considering that, initially, he
was motivated by scholarly interest and desire for power, whereas from this point on he is
36
driven by the promise of physical pleasure, which distracts him from his emotional state.
He even admits that “sweet pleasure” is the driving force in his life. After having lived a
well-adjusted life as scholar, he most likely wants to experience exciting things and thus
has completely changed his attitude.
The following lines demonstrate how Faustus is distracted from his despair by the
supernatural delights provided for him by Mephistopheles:
Have not I made blind Homer sing to me / Of Alexander’s love and
Oenone’s death? / And hath not he that built the walls of Thebes / With
ravishing sound of his melodious harp / Made music with my
Mephistopheles? / Why should I die, then, or basely despair? / I am
resolved, Faustus shall not repent. (2.3.24ff)
Two things become apparent here: first, while Faustus tends to regret his pact in weak
moments, he does not allow himself to indulge in self-pity and finds any means possible
to distract himself. Second, it is clear now that Mephistopheles, having convinced
Faustus of their friendship, has no difficulty in keeping his victim distracted.
This speech can be considered one of reflection, as Faustus has considered his own
situation and made a decision: “I am resolved, Faustus shall not repent” (2.3.30).
4.1.7.8 “What art thou, Faustus, but a man condemned to die?” (4.4.21-26)
In this soliloquy, Faustus ponders the end of his pact with Lucifer and his fate. He is
consumed by self-pity and, for the first time, shows himself to be afraid (“What art thou,
Faustus, but a man condemned to die? / Thy fatal time draws to a final end. / Despair
doth drive distrust into my thoughts. / Confound these passions with a quiet sleep”,
4.4.21ff).
However, Faustus’ reflective moments are always short-lived because, as before, he
dismisses his own concerns and refuses to acknowledge his problems: “Tush! Christ did
call the thief upon the cross; / Then rest thee, Faustus, quiet in conceit” 4.4.25f). The
lines also show another facet of Faustus’ character, namely how he is unable to
completely dismiss his faith. Although Faustus has repeatedly stated his desire to turn
away from God, it is a theological argument of his still possible redemption that comforts
37
him. Even so, his pride and naiveté continue to prevent him from true repentance.
Besides, Faustus’ thoughtful moments are only fleeting and his falling asleep shows that
he does not seem to worry too much about his troubles, otherwise he would not be able to
sleep.
As Faustus, in this passage, considers his own situation and emotions, it can be classified
as a ‘soliloquy of reflection’ (cf. Pfister 1993: 136).
4.1.7.9 “O Faustus, / Now hast thou but one bare hour to live” (5.2.132-185)
Faustus has, in his desperation, briefly considered suicide, but the devils managed to keep
him distracted. Finally, the Good and the Bad Angel appear again for the last time. The
Good Angel furiously blames Faustus for his wrong decision and shows him how
wonderful heaven would have been for him. However, he has sinned and therefore has to
go to hell, which is shown to him by the Bad Angel (cf. 5.2).
Faustus’ final soliloquy is spoken in despair as he is finally unable to distract himself
from the fact that, after his final hour, his soul is forfeit to Lucifer. For the first time, he is
unable to suppress his terror and fear of damnation, and desperately calls out for time to
slow down in order to grant him more time for repentance:
O Faustus, / Now hast thou but one bare hour to live, / And then thou must
be damned perpetually. / Stand still, you ever-moving spheres of heaven, /
That time may cease and midnight never come! / Fair nature’s eye, rise,
rise again, and make / Perpetual day; or let this hour be but / A year, a
month, a week, a natural day, / That Faustus may repent and save his soul!
(5.2.132ff)
It is doubtful, however, whether Faustus has really changed towards the end of the play
and is sincere in his repentance; as he is primarily driven by fear here, rather than genuine
regret. It is likely that, were he granted more time, Faustus would ignore the opportunity
to repent just as he had done with all the others. Moreover, Mangan (1989) argues in this
context that
It is not just the pathos of the once-powerful conjuror, still issuing orders
to the universe and trying a magic which we know will fail him, that
affects us here. There is something unreal about the very command. It is
38
an attempt to escape eternity by compressing it into the eternal moment of
the present. He compounds the unreality by asking for the sun to rise again
… so that time will reverse itself …. It is as if he imagines his own life
continuing, but the rest of the universe frozen in time. (Mangan 1989: 89)
In the following lines, Faustus finally realizes that he is alone and that the only friend he
had for twenty-four years was the devil, who has now abandoned him, only to fetch him
forever:
The stars move still; time runs; the clock will strike; / The devil will come,
and Faustus must be damned. / O, I’ll leap up to heaven! Who pulls me
down? / One drop of blood will save me. O, my Christ! / Rend not my
heart for naming of my Christ! / Yet will I call on him. O, spare me,
Lucifer! (5.2.142ff)
Although Faustus begs for forgiveness, he does not seem to be sincere, especially
considering that he calls on his savior (“my Christ”, line 145) in the same way as he
called upon his supernatural servant (“my Mephistopheles” 2.3.28). Thus, it seems that
Faustus is still in the grips of his megalomania, believing he has power to command the
assistance of the transcendental sphere.
In addition, the final two lines of the passage quoted above show that, despite everything,
Faustus retains some affection for and faith in Mephistopheles and is more concerned
with prolonging his life than with regretting his previous actions. Michael Mangan (1989)
argues in this context that “it is not God, we are assured, who is withholding his mercy,
but Faustus who is unable to ask for it. … Faustus here is clearly being tormented
physically by Lucifer: ‘Rend not my heart for naming of my Christ;’” (Mangan 1989:
90).
The next few lines show that Faustus is deeply confused, becoming more and more
desperate (“Where is it now? ’Tis gone; / And see a threat’ning arm, an angry brow. /
Mountains and hills, come, come and fall on me, / And hide me from the heavy wrath of
heaven! / No? Then will I headlong run into the earth. / Grape, earth! O, no, it will not
harbour me” 5.2.148ff). This shows that Faustus is still unable to accept his own
responsibility for his fate and persists in blaming others, a character trait which has
remained constant throughout the play. Mangan (1989) argues that “all his attempts to
39
escape are here predicated on the idea of space – on the supposition that somewhere there
might be some place where Faustus might be safe” (Mangan 1989: 91). There is a
similarity in structure with Faustus’ first soliloquy; just as he rejected the various fields of
study in the first scene, here he considers and rejects his various means of escape.
Nevertheless he is mostly scared because in the next few lines he again expresses fear of
hell and wishes to be redeemed, in order to save his soul and send it to heaven. Faustus
used to be a man who was very motivated and believed in his own ability to achieve
anything. However, after signing the pact with the devil, he abandoned this attitude and
especially now at the end of his life, he seems to sulkily act like a small school boy (“You
stars that reigned at my nativity, / Whose influence hath allotted death and hell, / Now
draw up Faustus like a foggy mist / Into the entrails of yon labouring cloud, / That when
you vomit forth into the air, / My limbs may issue from your smoky mouths, / But let my
soul mount and ascend to heaven.”, 5.2.154ff).
There is a certain irony in Faustus’ attempts to escape using the same theology, in
particular the concept of salvation that he rejected in the opening scene: (“O, half the
hour is past! ’Twill all be past anon. / O, if my soul must suffer for my sin, / Impose some
end to my incessant pain. / Let Faustus live in hell a thousand years, / A hundred
thousand, and at last be saved. / No end is limited to damnéd souls.” 5.2.161ff). At this
point, Faustus has given up calling on Mephistopheles, which shows that he has finally
realized how truly alone he is.
The next lines show Faustus’ inner struggle, in stark contrast to his previous strength.
Desperate, he continues to place the blame elsewhere, and imagines increasingly fantastic
ways of escaping punishment (“Why wert thou not a creature wanting soul? / Or why is
this immortal that thou hast? / O, Pythagoras’ metempsychosis, were that true, / This soul
should fly from me and I be changed / Into some brutish beast” 5.2.167ff). As Mangan
(1989) puts it, “his logic here is confusing: he is attempting to separate his identity from
his soul (‘This soul should fly from me…’). But the whole point is that in a Christian
cosmos, the soul constitutes the identity. The divorce which he prays for is impossible”
(Mangan 1989: 91). Again, Faustus’ primary concern is for his continued safety, rather
40
than true regret or repentance (“All beasts are happy, for, when they die, / Their souls are
soon dissolved in elements; / But mine must live still to be plagued in hell.” 5.2.172ff).
It is only at the very end of his life that Faustus, having tried all other possible arguments,
admits his own culpability: “No, Faustus, curse thyself. Curse Lucifer, / That hath
deprived thee of the joys of heaven” (5.2.176f). However, the readers/audience will not
really believe Faustus’ repentance, considering how many opportunities to repent he has
already rejected and especially because, as said, his primary motivation now is fear.
As the clock strikes his final hour, Faustus, in his terror, fantasizes impossible
transformations to avoid hell: “It strikes, it strikes! Now, body, turn to air, / Or Lucifer
will bear thee quick to hell. / O soul, be changed into small waterdrops, / And fall into the
ocean, ne’er be found!” (5.2.178ff). Mangan (1989) argues in this context that “the
speech has been a complex series of explorations of possible theological and
philosophical escape routes for Faustus, and it has increased in the complexity of its ideas
as it has progressed” (Mangan 1989: 92).
Faustus again tries to call on the heavens, but is too late. His final desperate appeals,
however, are for Lucifer’s mercy and Mephistopheles’ help rather than for divine
intercession. All pleading is in vain, however, as Faustus is dragged to hell (“O, mercy,
heaven, look not so fierce on me! / Adders and serpents, let me breathe a while! / Ugly
hell, gape not. Come not, Lucifer! / I’ll burn my books. O, Mephistopheles!” 5.2.182ff).
Mangan (1989) sees a certain humour in the situation:
The grimness of the humour at this moment is tremendous: at the very
point of damnation, Faustus the scholar is suddenly back at his own
starting-point, surrounded by those symbols of knowledge and wisdom,
his books. Unable, as ever, to differentiate between the various causes of
his damnation, Faustus suddenly grasps hold of the idea that one last thing
might save him – burning the books. … The large statement is
unmistakable: Faustus the scholar symbolically rejects the pursuit of
knowledge. (Mangan 1989: 92f)
As, in this final speech, Faustus considers all possible means of escape without ever
being able to truly accept his situation, this soliloquy is one of both ‘reflection’ and
‘conflict’ (cf. Pfister 1993: 136).
41
4.1.8 Doctor Faustus’ soliloquies - conclusion
As has been shown, Faustus speaks honestly about his wishes, thoughts and fears only in
his soliloquies, within which a certain character development can be traced. While the
first four soliloquies show his enthusiasm to learn the field of magic, from the fifth
onwards his thoughts become more focussed on damnation and he starts questioning his
pact with the devil. Whereas he is always able to motivate himself, fear and desperation
gain the upper hand towards the end of the play.
Nevertheless, Faustus reflects on himself in all his soliloquies. When comparing the first
and the last soliloquy of Doctor Faustus, it is possible to argue that they are total
opposites as far as Faustus’ inner mind is concerned. In the first soliloquy, Faustus
appears confident, even arrogant, in his listing of accomplishments and desire for
ultimate knowledge and power. In the last soliloquy, however, he is thoroughly
frightened, helpless, and desperate.
How Faustus’ character development differs from Hamlet’s is described in Sub-chapter
4.3.
4.2 Hamlet
Hamlet is the greatest creation in literature that I know of.
Alfred Lord Tennyson3
As Alfred Lord Tennyson pointed out, Hamlet has long been considered one of the most
fascinating characters in English literature. It is Hamlet as a character who fascinates
audiences and readers far more than they are tantalized by the plot of this revenge tragedy
about suicide and betrayal. Through Hamlet’s soliloquies, the readers/audience are
provided with his inner-thoughts, generating a feeling of intimacy with and proximity to
the character; further, the universality of Hamlet’s dilemma and the congeniality of his
character elicit audience/reader sympathy (cf. Höfele 2004: 239).
3 Höfele, Andreas (2004). “Hamlet”. In: Interpretationen – Shakespeares Dramen. Stuttgart: Reclam: 238.
42
4.2.1 Sources of Hamlet
The plot of Hamlet dates back to an Icelandic legend, and the name of its hero can be
translated as ‘stupid’ or ‘silly’. One might therefore tentatively establish a relationship
between the Icelandic hero and Shakespeare’s Hamlet who, as avenger, pretends to be
mad, or ‘silly’. However, it is unclear whether Shakespeare knew this particular legend
and used it as the main source for his play has not been discovered.
The primary reason for the continuing fascination of audiences, readers and critics with
Shakespeare’s version of the story is that his Hamlet is a ‘round character’, one whose
complex emotions and motivations are both relatable and believable (cf. Höfele, 2004:
241; 243).
4.2.2 Summary of Hamlet
At the beginning of the play, Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, has just returned home
from his studies in Wittenberg because of his father’s death. He gets to know that his
uncle Claudius might be responsible for his father’s death, and, in order to implement his
plan to seek revenge, Hamlet needs to find evidence to be absolutely sure of his course of
action. However, throughout the play, he is prevented from taking revenge not only by
his own melancholy but also by people and situations around him. In the end, he is finally
able to seek revenge but only at the expense of his own and many other lives.
4.2.3 Character conception of Hamlet
Like Doctor Faustus, Hamlet is a ‘dynamic character’ and can be described, according to
Pfister’s ideas, as a ‘round’ and ‘multidimensional character’; thus, Hamlet can be
considered an ‘individual’. (cf. Pfister 1993: 177f; 180).
4.2.4 Character description of Hamlet
As soon as Hamlet learns that his uncle Claudius might be responsible for his father’s
murder, he is full of hate against him and plans to seek revenge. Furthermore, he is also
very disappointed in his mother Gertrude, who has married Claudius very hastily after the
43
old king’s death. Hamlet, who has been in a state of melancholy from the start due to the
events that have happened to him, pretends to be mad in order to seek revenge.
However, while pursuing his deeply felt need for justice, he descends to the level of his
enemies (cf. Höfele 2004: 250). Ute Schläfer (cf. Schläfer in Schabert 1972: 552) argues
in this context that Hamlet wants to discover the truth himself because he does not want
to accept the ghost’s assumptions about his father’s death too readily; he is, however,
ironically forced to play a role by putting on a mask himself. The fact that Hamlet does
not like putting on a role is proven already in scene 1.2, in which Hamlet talks to his
mother, Queen Gertrude and his uncle, King Claudius: “Seems, madam! Nay, it is. I
know not ‘seems’” (1.2.76)4. Through this line, Hamlet expresses his dislike about
playing a role, however, he has to do so. Furthermore, it is the one and only passage in
the play where Hamlet’s inner and outer characterization agree with each other and in
which he is able to show his true feelings; he is depressive and suffers from grief, which
he reveals in the following lines:
’Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother, / Nor customary suits of
solemn black, / Nor windy suspiration of forced breath, / No, nor the
fruitful river in the eye, / Nor the dejected haviour of the visage, /
Together with all forms, moods, shows of grief / That can denote me truly.
These indeed ‘seem’, / For they are actions that a man might play; / But I
have that within which passeth show- / These but the trappings and the
suits of woe. (1.2.77-86)
The lines also show that Hamlet is deeply melancholic from the start, a character trait that
is displayed throughout the whole play, but since he is playing a role, Hamlet will not be
able to show his true feelings again.
Thus, appearance and reality play an important role throughout the play, a theme that will
be discussed more extensively below.
It is also Hamlet’s melancholy which makes him neglect his surroundings and avoid
company (cf. Höfele 2004: 258). Melancholics are seen as lost in thought, indecisive,
4 All text passages in this section are taken from: Shakespeare, William (1986). “The Tragedy of Hamlet,
Prince of Denmark” 1601(?). In: The Norton Shakespeare (1986). Eds. Steven Greenblatt et al. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1696-1784.
44
weary of life, quick-tempered and impulsive (cf. Höfele 2004: 258f), all of which are
character traits that fit Hamlet. In the end, Hamlet is able to kill Claudius, but only in
self-defense and at the expense of his own tragic death shortly afterwards. Thus, it is
possible to argue that his uncle Claudius always retains the upper hand (cf. Höfele 2004:
256) and Hamlet, whose aim is to revenge his father’s death, is not able to do what he
wants.
Ute Schläfer mentions in this context that Hamlet may be involved in a foul crime
committed by someone else. Yet, while taking revenge, he becomes guilty himself (cf.
Schläfer in Schabert 1972: 549f). Thus, Hamlet can be described as a tragic hero rather
than as an avenger (cf. Höfele 2004: 256f).
Hamlet’s uncertainty about his own identity makes it difficult not only for his enemies to
ascertain his emotions and intentions but also for his friends (cf. Suerbaum 2006: 341) as
well as for readers and audience. Without Hamlet’s soliloquies, whose function and
importance in the play are discussed later, the readers/audience would not know when
Hamlet actually pretends and play-acts and when he acts truthfully. Bert States (1992)
even argues in this context that
Hamlet does suffer from “personality diffusion” (or so one might plausibly
argue) and there is a sense in which he is “everyone – and no one” – or at
least there is a sense in which the other characters who rotate around him
might … conclude that each of them knew a different Hamlet. (States
1992: 17)
Clemen (1987) supports this position by arguing that
not only is Hamlet one of the lonely heroes presented to us in
Shakespeare’s tragedies; he becomes progressively more isolated from and
misunderstood by those around him. That is not only because he is
different from the outset, but also because he has put on a mask (the ‘antic
disposition’) and is playing a part. […] As soon as he is left alone Hamlet
feels the urge to break out of this unnatural situation and to speak his
mind. We share both the relief that he experiences in solitude and the need
that he feels to watch his tongue in company. (Clemen 1987: 119f)
Hamlet can be further described as a person who prefers to analyze and to think logically
about certain issues before taking action. In this context, the following interpretation is
45
necessary: Hamlet is a person who wants to act rationally and no evidence is good
enough for him, thus, he needs to collect all evidence himself, which proves that he is a
person who rather believes in his own ability than in others. However, it is exactly this as
well as his melancholy that paralyzes him in taking action.
One might wonder whether Hamlet has always been like that or whether his character has
been changed by the miserable chain of events that have happened to him. In this context,
it is possible to surmise that Hamlet has already changed before he comes back to
Denmark due to the shocking news of his father’s death as well as his mother’s sudden
marriage with her brother-in-law. Suerbaum (cf. 2006: 343), in a similar argument,
defines the young Hamlet as a noble man whose hesitation and lack of ambition and drive
result from an obstruction to act due to traumatization. Bert States (1992) agrees with the
position stated above and also argues that
In Hamlet’s case, melancholy could hardly be called a trait. The play
makes it amply clear that Hamlet’s gloomy state of mind is not an old
complaint but something brought on by recent events …. (States 1992:
63f)
Thus, Hamlet can be defined as a person who is easily influenced by certain situations he
has to face and, furthermore, by people, as States (1992) points out: “… people are
changed by their relationships with other people” (States 1992: 9). Ute Schläfer defines
Hamlet’s melancholy even as ‘melancholy adust’: he does not suffer from natural
melancholy but from one caused by particular incidents (cf. Schläfer in Schabert 1972:
550).
From act 4 onwards, Hamlet repeatedly reveals parts of his character. The passages are
given below.
In a letter Hamlet reveals his adventures at sea to Horatio, depicting himself as a
determined young man who possesses the desire to act immediately, without scruples:
Ere we were two days old at sea, a pirate of very / warlike appointment
gave us chase. Finding ourselves too slow / of sail, we put on a compelled
valour, and in the grapple I / boarded them. On the instant they got clear of
our ship, so I / alone became their prisoner. (4.6.13ff)
46
These lines allow for the interpretation that Hamlet must have been different before
coming back to Denmark. He must have been determined, with a thirst for action, and has
apparently changed due to the incidents he has had to face since arriving in Denmark.
However, the lines show Hamlet currently being determined and capable of action due to
the events that just happened; nevertheless, they give rise to argue that Hamlet can act but
only when not emotionally involved.
The following lines illustrate once more that Hamlet has become a bloodthirsty man who
wants to seek revenge throughout the play but has not completely lost his decency: “Has
this fellow no feeling of his business that a sings at / grave-making?” (5.1.61f). It is
necessary to argue that incidents and people have influenced him as well as tempted him
since he came back to Denmark and they are to be made responsible for his character
change. While talking to the sexton, who does not recognise Hamlet as Prince of
Denmark, he wants to find out what others think of the Prince’s madness, which again
confirms his ability to see something through however, it is not seeking revenge (cf. 5.1).
Upon discovering Ophelia’s death, Hamlet abruptly appears completely different, is
neither thoughtful nor unable to act but quickly jumps to Laertes into Ophelia’s open
grave (“This is I, / Hamlet the Dane.” 5.1.241f) and seems to finally be able to fight,
probably due to shock: “Why, I will fight with him upon this theme / Until my eyelids
will no longer wag.” (5.1.251f). A character change can be identified inasmuch as, in
stark contrast to his previous need to carefully analyse his feelings and reactions to
traumatic events, he now springs into immediate action.
Hamlet’s actions ensuring that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern be killed in his stead, and
his lack of regret or sympathy for them (“Why, man, they did make love to this
employment. / They are not near my conscience. Their defeat / Doth by their own
insinuation grow.” 5.2.58ff.), show that he is a clever young man who knows how to
protect himself. It seems as though Hamlet is trying to regain his surmised old character
traits towards the end of the play, which again assures his character change.
Before the duel between Hamlet and Laertes, the readers/audience see Hamlet’s character
change inasmuch as he now seems to be motivated as well as determined to finally fight
47
for his beliefs and has possibly put down his inability to act and regain his surmised old
character traits. He shows himself, now, to be motivated and determined: “Let the foils be
brought; / the gentleman willing, and the King hold his purpose, I will / win for him an I
can. If not, I’ll gain nothing but my shame / and the odd hits.” (5.2.129ff), while Horatio
appears reserved (“Hor. If your mind dislike anything, obey it. I will forestall / their
repair hither, and say you are not fit. Ham. Not a wit. We defy augury. There’s a special
provi- / dence in the fall of a sparrow.” 5.2.155ff). Furthermore, Hamlet still pretends to
be mad in front of all the other people, which again proves his ability to follow through
with something (“Then Hamlet does it not, Hamlet denies it. / Who does it then? His
madness.” 5.2.173ff).
Throughout the play, Hamlet has to deal with several sad and shocking experiences since
returning to Denmark, which have induced Hamlet to completely change his character.
Whereas readers/audience can surmise that he once used to be determined and strong, he
became melancholic, sad and unable to act as soon as he had to experience unfortunate
events. This proves Hamlet’s ‘melancholy adust’ (cf. Schläfer in Schabert 1972: 550),
which has already been mentioned previously. It seems as if Hamlet manifests these
melancholic thoughts in his mind, even though he is still able to behave normally as soon
as he is in company. This proves his ability to put on an act, which he perfectly follows
through the whole play. At first, he pretends to hate playing a role, but in fact he keeps
acting throughout the whole play: once he plays the lover, once the philosopher, once the
tragic hero and often he plays the clown, however, the role he has the most difficulties
with is playing the avenger (cf. Höfele 2004: 269).
The plan to pretend to be mad defines Hamlet as clever young man, who is simply not
able to implement his revenge due to an inability to act caused by several miseries he has
to experience. Hamlet’s reason for hesitating is that he wants to be sure that his uncle was
responsible before acting. However, it is not always Hamlet’s fault that his revenge is not
carried out, sometimes other characters or situations prevent him from doing so. This
proves once more that Hamlet is a tragic hero rather than a bloodthirsty avenger (cf.
Höfele 2004: 256f), which is how he also appears throughout the whole play: a person
48
who has become part of a crime he is not responsible for, but which he now has to solve
(cf. Schläfer in Schabert 1972: 549f).
4.2.5 Characterization through other characters
Hamlet is also characterized in opposition to three other characters in the play acting as
his foils: Fortinbras, a determined man of action; Laertes, a well-behaved but impulsive
man; and finally Horatio, a stoic person (cf. Suerbaum 2006: 340).
Already in scene one, Horatio’s description of old Hamlet, the former King of Denmark
and father of young Hamlet, and the surmising assumption that his son might have been
similar in scene 1.1 (cf. “valiant”), young Hamlet appears as the total opposite throughout
the play, which proves that he has already undergone a character change due to the
sudden marriage of his mother, which is the only probable explanation.
Laertes is another figure through which Hamlet is indirectly described. Although both
characters face the same tragedy of having lost their fathers, Laertes appears to be much
more determined and ready to seek revenge: “I’ll not be juggled with. / To hell,
allegiance! Vows to the blackest devil! / Conscience and grace to the profoundest pit! / I
dare damnation.” 4.5.126ff). Thus, Laertes can be seen as Hamlet’s opposite; where
Hamlet doubts, reflects and seeks proof, Laertes springs to immediate action.
Hamlet himself draws attention to the similarities between himself and Laertes: “But I am
very sorry, good Horatio, / That to Laertes I forgot myself; / For by the image of my
cause I see / The portraiture of his.” 5.2.76ff). Laertes has suffered the same sorrow as
Hamlet, he has even lost his sister, and is now full of rage to revenge their deaths.
However, unlike Laertes, Hamlet has been unable to act. Again, Laertes is portrayed as
opposite of Hamlet.
As far as Hamlet’s character description is concerned, not only he himself is annoyed
with the passivity he has lived with since coming back to Denmark, also other people
have realised his inability to act although he has been pretending to implement his plan to
seek revenge and thus has not been showing who he really is. The following lines
emphasise that King Claudius describes Hamlet as the opposite of Laertes:
49
That we would do / We should do when we would, for this ‘would’
changes, / And hath abatements and delays as many / As there are
tongues, are hands, are accidents; / And then this ‘should’ is like a
spendthrift’s sigh, / That hurts by easing. (4.7.95.5ff)
The theme of hesitation that runs throughout the whole play is again applied to Hamlet
and with the above stated lines, Claudius wants Laertes to be absolutely reliable to
immediately seek revenge and thus behave differently than Hamlet, which Laertes
assures he will do. However, Claudius is urging Laertes to behave in a certain way in
these lines; his words do not directly refer to Hamlet. Nevertheless, the play allows the
readers/audience to draw a comparison between the two, not only through a direct
characterization by Claudius but also by an implicit characterization through contrast.
King Claudius further describes Hamlet as tragic hero, who is responsible for disaster as
the following lines show: “Next, your son gone, and he most violent author / Of his own
just remove;” (4.5.76f). This underlines how Hamlet, despite being uninvolved in the
initial tragedy and moved by forces beyond his control, has turned towards violence.
As far as Hamlet’s character in comparison to Fortinbras is concerned, Horatio describes
the Prince of Norway as “of unimprovéd mettle hot and full” already in the first scene
(1.1.95), which gives rise to surmise that the expression indirectly describes Hamlet as
the opposite. Not only Horatio talks about Fortinbras, but also King Claudius does so in
scene two, in which he ponders about government issues. He describes Fortinbras as
determined and fearless, which can also be interpreted as being the opposite of Hamlet.
Fortinbras pays respect to Hamlet in his orders to “bear Hamlet like a soldier to the
stage” (5.2.340) since he “has proved most royally” (5.2.342) at the end of the play.
Fortinbras knows absolutely nothing about Hamlet’s hesitation or motivations; all he
knows is the outcome. His only reason for finding Hamlet noble is because Hamlet has
taken revenge, however, he had to pay for it with his own life and can thus be described
as tragic hero (cf. Höfele 2004: 256f).
50
4.2.6 Hamlet’s soliloquies
Hamlet’s soliloquies provide insight into his inner mind and are thus of particular
importance, as Clemen (1987) explains:
The seven soliloquies spoken by Hamlet show Shakespeare at the peak of
his powers with regard to the art of the soliloquy. Throughout the first four
acts they provide a link between the inner and the outer action, and their
occurrence at irregular intervals also contributes to the dramatic rhythm of
the play, effecting a caesura, a moment for reflection, at important points.
Without them an important dimension in the play would be missing;
Hamlet’s character would be even less comprehensible, and audience and
reader would be less able to experience the tension of the play and to gain
insight into its problems. (Clemen 1987: 119)
Hamlet’s inner conflict is not shown only through thought-analysis or by expressions of
what, precisely, he is feeling; his feelings and thoughts are not only stated, but also
expressed and made tangible through visual, aural and experiential terms (cf. Clemen
1985: 126).
Only the readers/audience become acquainted with Hamlet’s inner-life as revealed
through his soliloquies. Thus, it is possible to speak of ‘discrepant awareness’ and, in this
context specifically, of ‘superior audience awareness’.
Thus, while Hamlet is remote and inscrutable to the other characters throughout the play,
when he is alone on stage, the readers/audience get to know the ‘real’ Hamlet.
Nevertheless, the readers/audience still do not fully understand the character of Hamlet,
as Clemen (1987) argues:
This does not mean that the soliloquies provide a key to all the secrets of
Hamlet’s character. The clarifying function of the soliloquy which was
central at an earlier phase in the development of the drama is restricted in
Hamlet to a few passages. Each soliloquy gives rise to new questions and
some soliloquies contain contradictions of earlier utterances. Hamlet’s
character remains enigmatic in spite of the many revealing statements we
hear from him. (Clemen 1987: 120)
The aim of the following analysis is to show how the soliloquies spoken by Hamlet
reveal his inner mind and his character change.
51
4.2.7 Analysis of Hamlet’s soliloquies
The analysis below shows what the soliloquies reveal about Hamlet’s inner mind and
how they contribute to his character development.
4.2.7.1 “O that this too too solid flesh would melt” (1.2.129-159)
Hamlet’s need to speak his first soliloquy appears obvious at first glance: he conveys the
impression of being generally confused and, by starting his first soliloquy with the
exclamation “O” (1.2.129), he appears to be desperate and to finally start to give vent to
some of his feelings. Hamlet’s first soliloquy can even be described as an emotional
outburst because he considers killing himself from the very first line: “O that this too too
solid flesh would melt” (1.2.129). The readers/audience can assume the true reasons for
Hamlet’s current mental situation: the death of his father and his mother’s sudden
remarriage are legitimate reasons to be depressed without needing murder to come into it.
By expressing the wish to die, he conveys the impression of being completely unsettled
and it seems as if his inner mind is not able to deal with the current situation. Thus,
Hamlet’s character appears to be melancholic and sad, as already illustrated previously,
and the line evokes the feeling that he does not want to accept his current situation, but
wishes to escape instead.
In the lines immediately following, however, he is quick to dismiss the possibility of
suicide; thus he seems to give vent to conflicting desires and beliefs, which reveals his
current erratic mental state (“Or that the Everlasting had not fixed / His canon ’gainst
self-slaughter!” 1.2.131f). In these lines Hamlet admits that he cannot commit suicide,
however much he might desire death; this is the first instance of the defining ambiguity
of Hamlet’s character: a conflict between his desires and beliefs, resulting in an inability
or unwillingness to take his desired action. Specifically, here, he is lamenting the fact that
he cannot commit suicide, the “Everlasting”, meaning God, forbids it without being
doomed, but wishes that he could, clearly emphasizing his melancholic state of mind.
Like Doctor Faustus, Hamlet appears to reflect on various possibilities in his soliloquy,
which proves him to be a rational person.
52
Hamlet has come to feel that it is impossible for him to believe in other people or the
world in general any longer, which he expresses in the following lines: “O God, O God! /
How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable / Seem to me all the uses of this world!”
(1.2.132ff). These lines show that Hamlet generalises his personal experiences, which is
also a melancholy trait. Furthermore, he seems to completely exaggerate this over-
generalisation of personal experience and thus drags himself more and more into his
unsettled mood (cf. Schläfer in Schabert 1972: 552).
From the audience’s/readers’ current point of view, Hamlet’s mother Gertrude is mainly
responsible for Hamlet’s mental state, which is underlined not only by the line “frailty,
thy name is woman-” (1.2.146), but also by the fact that this theme is repeated four times
in Hamlet’s first soliloquy. Already in line 138, Hamlet complains about the sudden
marriage of his mother and idealises and praises his father (e.g. “So excellent a king, that
was to this / Hyperion to a satyr, so loving to my mother” 1.2.139f). From these lines
onwards, Hamlet starts to reveal a specific motivation for speaking: rage and
disappointment in his mother and grief about his father’s death are responsible for his
emotional outburst. As far as line 146 is concerned, Hamlet again expands his personal
experience to a general level and that not only accuses his mother of thinking just of
herself but he accuses all women collectively of being weak. This shows that Hamlet’s
ideal world has collapsed due to his mother’s actions, causing him to fall into a state of
depression and self-pity, which indicates that his character is pessimistic, sad and
worried.
His father’s death and his mother’s actions have lead Hamlet to question his meaning of
life, exhibit suicidal tendencies and doubt the stability of his previously positive
worldview. That is, the readers/audience assume that, before returning from Wittenberg,
Hamlet may have had an idealized view of the world – one in which his father’s death
was not a possibility, his parents’ marriage unproblematic and his role in life secure. It
seems as if Hamlet does not know how to handle the current situation, which shows that
he is easily influenced by conditions and people around him. Due to his strong
depression, the readers/audience see Hamlet as very desperate person who has lost faith
in people, life and the world, in other words, as a stereotypical melancholic.
53
In the course of his first soliloquy, Hamlet’s mood changes rapidly from an initial state of
deep melancholy to fury at not only his own mother but at all women in the world and
finally to hatred for his uncle. Thus, Hamlet’s first soliloquy can be seen as an emotional
outburst, as his feelings and thoughts appear to be random but perfectly mirror his inner
mind. His aversion towards his uncle is apparent in the following lines, in which Claudius
is contrasted with Hamlet’s father: “My father’s brother, but no more like my father /
Than I to Hercules” (1.2.152f). Thus, Hamlet is someone who is full of hateful thoughts
now, which underlines that people and circumstances must have changed his character.
Furthermore, Hamlet indirectly and perhaps accidentally characterizes himself by stating
that he is not Hercules just as much as Claudius is not his father, and thus he, too, is not
what a ‘Hercules’ ought to be: strong, a fighter, a hero, a demi-god.
As Hamlet not only describes his inner emotional state, but also reveals his opinion of
other characters as well as of himself, Hamlet’s first soliloquy can be defined as a
mixture between a ‘soliloquy of reflection’ and a ‘soliloquy of self-description’ (cf.
Pfister 2000: 136).
Hamlet concludes his first soliloquy by once again directly expressing his anger about his
mother and his uncle (e.g. “O most wicked speed, to post / With such dexterity to
incestuous sheets!” 1.2.156f). Finally, these lines make it entirely transparent why
Hamlet is full of rage; for him the relationship and marriage between his mother and his
uncle is incest. This again shows that Hamlet is completely appalled and also
disappointed by his mother because he would never have thought that his mother is
capable of such atrocities, as he perceives them. In the following line Hamlet then
anticipates the further plot description and expresses that “It is not, nor it cannot come to
good.“ (1.2.158), which might suggest that Hamlet already knows that he will not be able
to do anything about the situation, thus being a classic foreshadowing as well as a means
of mirroring Hamlet’s melancholy mood by way of his pessimistic outlook.
The need to remain silent about what he actually thinks and feels is expressed in the
following line, which emphasises the fact that he will not reveal his inner mind to others
(“But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue” 1.2.159). In this context, the following
54
interpretation is necessary: Hamlet refers to his mother’s words in this line, urging him
not to behave melancholic and sad (“Good Hamlet, cast thy nightly colour off, / And let
thine eye look like a friend on Denmark. / Do not for ever with thy vailéd lids / Seek for
thy noble father in the dust. / Thou know’st ’tis common- all that lives must die, / Passing
through nature to eternity.” 1.2.68-73). Thus, he has to remain silent although he
apparently suffers from anger and fury, but announces that he will not act upon these
feelings.
4.2.7.2 “O all you host of heaven! O earth! What else?” (1.5.92-113)
In his second soliloquy, Hamlet attempts to calm himself after the appearance of his
father’s ghost, who he decides to meet after he has expressed his melancholy as seen in
the following lines: “Why, what should be the fear? / I do not set my life at a pin’s fee”
(1.4.45f). This proves once more that Hamlet deeply struggles with the events he has to
deal with, namely his father’s death and his mother’s sudden remarriage. Further, he
attempts to make sense of the ghost’s revelation of the true circumstances of his death,
and considers his response to the request to take revenge.
Here, just as in his first soliloquy, Hamlet begins with the exclamation “O,” which
underlines Hamlet’s continued desperation, aggravated by his encounter with the ghost.
Again, Hamlet gives vent to his feelings and thoughts in a disjointed, exaggerated manner
that can be justified on the story-level due to his recent shock. This confusion and
tendency towards hyperbole can be seen in the very first line: “O all you host of heaven!
O earth! What else? / And shall I couple hell? O fie!” (1.5.92f). Hamlet, here, appears
nothing short of overwhelmed. Comparing the ending of Hamlet’s first soliloquy, in
which he states that he will not act (“But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue.”
1.2.159), the readers/audience now realize that there will be a change.
Hamlet’s mental distress is revealed to have affected him physically to the extent that he
fears collapse (“Hold, hold, my heart, / And you, my sinews, grow not instant old, / But
bear me stiffly up.” 1.5.93ff), conveying the full extent of his emotional upheaval to the
readers/audience.
55
Although Hamlet appears confused and unsettled, he still seems to believe the ghost’s
claim, which is expressed through the repetition of the line “Remember thee?” (1.5.95),
referring to the ghost. Hamlet reveals a determination to remember not only the ghost’s
version of events, but also his desire for revenge: “Yea, from the table of my memory /
I’ll wipe away all trivial fond records, / … And thy commandment all alone shall live /
Within the book and volume of my brain” (1.5.98ff). He is, at this point, convinced that
the ghost’s claim is right and that revenge against Claudius is the proper course of action.
Whereas Hamlet appears bewildered and unsettled at the beginning of the soliloquy, he
now appears to be motivated and determined, which clearly shows that the ghost has
persuaded Hamlet to seek revenge on his uncle. It can thus be argued that without the
ghost, Hamlet might not actually plan revenge at all. This again shows that Hamlet’s
feelings and thoughts appear randomly in this soliloquy and thus reveal his unsettled
inner mind. Furthermore, it emphasises that Hamlet’s mood and behaviour change
according to certain people and situations as would affect anybody in this situation,
which defines him as a ‘dynamic’ and ‘round character’.
Towards the end of Hamlet’s second soliloquy, he shows other character traits besides
being melancholic, sad and introverted, and appears determined and full of hate against
his uncle Claudius, which is shown in the following lines: “So, uncle, there you are. Now
to my word: / It is ‘Adieu, adieu, remember me’. / I have sworn’t” (1.5.111ff). The
readers/audience realize that Hamlet believes that his uncle is his father’s murderer and is
determined to begin his revenge campaign now. However, whether Hamlet will
implement his plans remains to be seen.
In his second soliloquy, Hamlet reflects on the ghost’s claim, comes to the conclusion
that he believes the claim to be true, expresses his hatred for his uncle and his desire to
take revenge on him. Thus, the soliloquy can be defined as both a ‘soliloquy of
reflection,” and as a ‘soliloquy of planning’ (cf. Pfister 1993: 136).
The following lines show that Hamlet plans to seek revenge through putting on a role,
which he reveals to Horatio and the ghost: “As I perchance hereafter shall think meet / To
put an antic disposition on-” (1.5.172f). Again, the theme of appearance and reality
56
becomes prominent: whereas Hamlet had to remain silent due to his mother’s wish in
scene 1.2, he now chooses himself to play a role and not to show his true feelings towards
others; something he does not enjoy, however, but believes to be the right thing to do to
convict his uncle of his guilt.
4.2.7.3 “O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” (2.2.526-582)
Contextually, this soliloquy directly follows Hamlet’s plan to confirm Claudius’ guilt by
staging a play depicting a murder similar to the one claimed by the ghost. However,
Hamlet has additional, less obvious, reasons for speaking. The statement “Now I am
alone” (2.2.526) indicates that Hamlet will again give vent to feelings and emotions he
would not reveal in company. The repetition of the initial “O” of the previous two
soliloquies confirms that Hamlet’s general state of melancholy and desperation has not
changed. From the first line, Hamlet berates himself: “O, what a rogue and peasant slave
am I!” (2.2.527). It becomes apparent that Hamlet is reacting to his most recent
experience – having watched a player perform:
Is it not monstrous that this player here, / But in a fiction, in a dream of
passion, / Could force his soul so to his whole conceit / That from her
working all his visage wanned, / Tears in his eyes, distraction in’s aspect, /
A broken voice, …. (2.2.528ff)
These lines reveal that Hamlet envies the actor’s ability to act without feeling; he acts to
hide what he is truly feeling, first due to his mother’s wish stated in his first soliloquy
(“But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue.” 1.2.158) and then he puts on his act as
a madman as strategy to fulfil a goal, rather than something he can be said to like. What
becomes further apparent through these lines is the idea of irony of his inability to play
the one role he wants to play.
Furthermore, Hamlet again exaggerates in the following lines by assuming what the
actors would do if they experienced the same grief as he does:
What would he do / Had he the motive and the cue for passion / That I
have? He would drown the stage with tears, / And cleave the general ear
with horrid speech, / Make mad the guilty and appal the free, ….
(2.2.537ff)
57
Hamlet compares the actor’s false grief, which is very overdone and his own real grief,
which is hidden through these lines. He appears angry that he is unable to show his true
feelings towards others and thus indirectly points towards the amount of passivity that
has lead his life so far.
Furthermore, on the one hand, the readers/audience learn that Hamlet’s grief is
exacerbated by his inability to reveal it to others. On the other hand, it once more proves
that certain people and situations make Hamlet feel even sadder; in this context the
actors, who are able to show any emotion anytime, which assures his ‘melancholy adust’
(cf. Schläfer in Schabert 1972: 550).
It seems as if Hamlet admires the actor because he is able to show feelings on every
possible occasion and therefore pities himself because he has never openly shown
feelings, so far due to his strategy to put on an act. Thus, it becomes more and more
apparent that Hamlet not only fights against the outside world but against himself and his
inner world: his self-accusations seem to confuse him more and more.
In line 541 (“Make mad the guilty and appal the free”), Hamlet alludes to his own
revenge plan: he wants to prove his uncle’s guilt by means of the play and thus horrify
the audience, especially his mother. However, he again strongly accuses himself because
he knows that he has not really implemented any of his plans so far and condemns living
passively in the following lines:
Yet I, / A dull and muddy-mettled rascal, peak / Like John-a-dreams,
unpregnant of my cause, / And can say nothing-no, not for a king / Upon
whose property and most dear life / A damned defeat was made.
(2.2.543ff)
The readers/audience realize that Hamlet perfectly describes his character, which he is
apparently annoyed with but lacks the ability to change due to the strategy he has
embarked on. However, if he used to be determined and a man of action, as is implied in
scene 1.1, it must be even worse for him now being melancholic and sad as well as being
someone who lives passively instead of living actively. However, what is quite
contradictory is that although Hamlet is influenced by certain people and situations as far
as his melancholy is concerned, he is not completely influenced positively by the ghost to
58
seek revenge and to follow through with his plans. This strongly suggests that Hamlet’s
melancholy trait must be even more developed than any other trait. Furthermore, it
proves once more that he is a rational person who needs to collect evidence on his own
and for whom no other proof is good enough.
In the following line, Hamlet even asks himself: “Am I a coward?” (2.2.548), which
emphasises that the person he struggles with most is himself. On the one hand, he is
annoyed with his passivity, but on the other hand he cannot really do anything about it, as
the following line points out: “Ha? ’Swounds, I should take it;” (2.2.553). However, as
Clemen argues, these thoughts and feelings appear quite randomly as soon as Hamlet is
alone and they do not have any objective statement but rather a subjective one (cf.
Clemen 1985: 122) because although Hamlet feels sad, devastated and confused, he has
nevertheless been able to play the madman and thus deceive many people and has also
still been able to gather himself after each of the previous soliloquies.
It becomes further apparent that Hamlet has not only vented his emotions randomly in the
three soliloquies so far, he now totally questions the amount of passivity that has ruled his
revenge strategy and is thus angry with himself that effectively nothing has been
achieved, which can be seen in the following lines: “Ay, sure, this is most brave, / That I,
the son of the dear murderéd, / Prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, / Must, like a
whore, unpack my heart with words / And fall a-cursing like a very drab, / A scullion!”
(2.2.560ff). Whereas he has belittled himself in the previous line (“Why, what an ass am
I?” 2.2.560), he now seems to be greatly unsatisfied and annoyed with himself. Despite
his confusion, he manages not to completely indulge in his melancholic thoughts, which
proves that he is able to stick to his plan in spite of his melancholy, as the following lines
illustrate: “Fie upon’t, foh! / - About, my brain.” (2.2.565).
Apparently, Hamlet’s third soliloquy has the function of revealing his plan, as can be
seen in the following lines, which is to the readers’/audience’s advantage because they
now know more about Hamlet’s plan than any other character in the play: “I’ll have these
players / Play something like the murder of my father / Before mine uncle. I’ll observe
his looks, / I’ll tent him to the quick. If a but blench, / I know my course.” (2.2.571ff). If
59
Hamlet did not review his plan out loud, thus, the audience would have no idea what his
plan was, therefore, the audience requires this information to be repeated explicitly.
In this context, it is possible to argue that, although the ghost has directly tried to
persuade him to take revenge, Hamlet – who previously seemed eager to act directly –
now seems to need more evidence about his uncle’s guilt:
The spirit that I have seen / May be the devil, and the devil hath power /
T’assume a pleasing shape; yea, and perhaps, / Out of my weakness and
my melancholy- / As he is very potent with such spirits- / Abuses me to
damn me. (2.2.575ff)
Two interpretations are possible in this context: on the one hand, the passage shows that
Hamlet does not readily believe in everything others claim, which is quite contradictory
because we have seen so far that Hamlet is very easily influenced by other people and
situations. Therefore, the other interpretation might be more suitable: Hamlet’s biggest
problem is his hesitation. Also, in this situation, he seems to hesitate instead of taking the
ghost’s claim for granted and to start his revenge.
Hamlet tells the readers/audience his reason for his hesitation in the soliloquy: he is not
sure and wants proof before acting (“I’ll have grounds / More relative than this.”
2.2.580f). Whereas Hamlet expressed certainty to believe the ghost’s claim at the end of
his previous soliloquy and swore to act (“Remember thee” 1.5.95), he now behaves
inconsistently and suddenly thinks the ghost might not have been trustworthy at all, since
he decides to need evidence collected by himself. This underlines once again that Hamlet
changes his attitudes, which is mainly expressed in his soliloquies because as soon as he
is in company, he seems to be more rational.
Hamlet reveals a lot about his character in this soliloquy, including his acceptance of his
melancholy and weakness, thus showing self-awareness (“Out of my weakness and my
melancholy-” 2.2.578). Hamlet now gives the impression of being strong for the first
time, inasmuch as he has developed a plan to remove his doubts and set it into action
(“I’ll have grounds / More relative than this.” 2.2.580f). However, it is also possible to
argue that he might subconsciously want to postpone his act of revenge simply due to his
hesitation.
60
In his third soliloquy, Hamlet again expresses despair as well as sadness. He envies the
actor who is able to reveal any emotion anytime. Thus, this soliloquy can be defined as
‘soliloquy of reflection’. In addition to his usual mode of self-reflection and pondering,
Hamlet has now developed a tendency towards harsh self-criticism, therefore, this
soliloquy can also be defined as ‘soliloquy of self-description’. Since it is difficult to
assign only one characteristic to a soliloquy, it is possible to argue that it is also a
‘soliloquy of planning’ since Hamlet reveals his plan and its consequences to the
readers/audience towards the end of it. (cf. Pfister 1993: 136)
4.2.7.4 “To be, or not to be; that is the question:” (3.1.58-92)
When Hamlet enters the stage in 3.1, he interrupts Claudius, Gertrude and Polonius, who
have been discussing his mental state, and causes them to hastily withdraw. It is not clear
whether they exit completely, or merely hide, and thus it is also possible that they
eavesdrop on Hamlet’s ensuing fourth soliloquy. What is certain is that both Polonius and
Claudius eavesdrop on the conversation between Hamlet and Polonius’ daughter Ophelia
directly following the soliloquy.
Nothing has occurred that might have further unsettled Hamlet since his previous
soliloquy. On the contrary, then, he seemed to be determined to finally disclose his
uncle’s guilt by means of the play (“The play’s the thing / Wherein I’ll catch the
conscience of the King” 2.2.581f). However, Hamlet starts his fourth soliloquy by
completely wallowing in melancholy; yet again, he questions the meaning of life, and
raises the question of whether death is preferable to life (“To be, or not to be; that is the
question” 3.1.58). Whereas his previous soliloquies have started with the exclamation
“O”, indicating high excitement due to an immediately prior cause, here his words
represent, not an outburst, but rather deep reflection without an immediate relation to an
instigating experience; this indicates that his melancholy has become a continuous state,
no longer directly related to external stimuli. It is important to note that his questioning,
both of himself and of the potential afterlife, is a continuation of the same reflections he
has had earlier; none of the struggles he brings up here are new. Already in the first
soliloquy he ponders about killing himself (“O that this too too solid flesh would melt, /
61
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew” 1.2.129f) but does not do so (“Or that the
Everlasting had not fixed / His canon ’gainst self-slaughter!” 1.2.131f). Thus, they do not
make him any more difficult to understand than before; Hamlet simply again generalizes
his personal concerns and consequently continues to struggle with himself.
In his fourth soliloquy, Hamlet does not reflect on any people nor situations he has
previously had to deal with and therefore he does not seem to be completely sad and
desperate; the first line (“To be, or not to be; that is the question” 3.1.58) conveys a rather
silent and thoughtful atmosphere, also due to the soliloquy not starting with the
exclamation “O”. Whereas Hamlet was in inner turmoil in his previous soliloquies and
his thoughts and feelings appeared randomly in no fixed order, he now appears to be
more organised and does not question personal concerns but the meaning of life in the
first line, which emphasises once more that he expands personal concerns to the general.
However, while it is generalized, suicide is nevertheless a personal concern. Furthermore,
Hamlet’s reflections here seem to be a way for him to gain distance from his problems; it
conveys a certain silence and order compared to the previous soliloquies. This shows that
Hamlet is adaptable and that his moods change very quickly. Moreover, it presents
Hamlet as a very pensive character who ponders certain issues. However, even without a
direct inspiration, there is reason for his thoughts, as well as logical progress from the
first soliloquy onwards.
It is necessary to outline two interpretations for Hamlet to speak his fourth soliloquy (“To
be, or not to be; that is the question” 3.1.58): Hamlet enters the stage holding a book,
which seems to occupy his attention; therefore, it is plausible to argue that he speaks the
first line of his soliloquy as a conclusion to what he has just read (cf. Clemen 1985: 139).
However, Hamlet might also be aware of being watched by Polonius and Claudius and
thus he might put on an act to support his alleged madness, which would support an
interpretation of Hamlet as a clever schemer and a highly skilled actor. However,
Claudius and Polonius do not react to it in the next scene and go on as though there were
no change, which could mean that they did not hear Hamlet’s soliloquy.
62
Whereas Hamlet spoke about himself in the first person in the previous soliloquies, he
now uses “we” and “us” and it is therefore debatable whether any of his thoughts refer to
himself in this soliloquy. However, since Hamlet tends to expand the personal to the
general, it is arguable that he indirectly refers to himself once more, but in a more fixed
order than in any other previous soliloquy (“To die, to sleep- / No more, and by a sleep to
say we end / The heartache and the thousand natural shocks / That flesh is heir to-”
3.1.62ff).
Hamlet goes on to express his inability to decide on a course of action, condemning his
hesitation in the following lines: “For in that sleep of death what dreams may come /
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil / Must give us pause. There’s the respect /
That makes calamity of so long life” (3.1.68ff); thus, the soliloquy can be argued, despite
its pronouns, to refer specifically to Hamlet’s own problems.
Hamlet raises questions without finding suitable answers yet again throughout the
soliloquies; here, he also raises new questions, as he has already done in the previous
soliloquy but seems to get nowhere to overcome his hesitation. Furthermore, one can
argue that, if Hamlet is aware of being watched, he indirectly refers to his uncle in the
following lines:
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, / Th’oppressor’s wrong,
the proud man’s contumely, / The pangs of disprized love, the law’s delay,
/ The insolence of office, and the spurns / That patient merit of
th’unworthy takes, / When he himself might his quietus make / With a
bare bodkin? (3.1.72ff)
One could interpret these lines as Hamlet expressing all the injustices in the world with
reference to his uncle, thus depicting himself as a tragic hero (cf. Höfele 2004: 256f),
who is involved in a crime he is not responsible for, but which he has to solve
nonetheless (cf. Schläfer in Schabert 1972: 549f).
With the line “With a bare bodkin” (3.1.78), Hamlet refers to committing suicide. He has
done this several times before, however, now he explicitly mentions a way of committing
suicide whereas he only thought shallowly about it earlier. Although it is not clear
whether he speaks of himself or just in general, it is necessary to draw personal lines to
63
Hamlet in this context because his melancholy might often put him into hopeless
situations, in which the only perceivable way out might be committing suicide. On the
other hand, it seems as if this is not really a possibility for him, as the following lines
show:
Who would these fardels bear, / To grunt and sweat under a weary life, /
But that the dread of something after death, / The undiscovered country
from whose bourn / No traveller returns, puzzles the will, / And makes us
rather bear those ills we have / Than fly to others that we know not of.
(3.1.78ff)
Hamlet expresses uncertainty about what follows after death and defines this anxiety
about the incalculable afterlife as the main reason to stay alive. Uncertainty of what will
follow his revenge, as well as anxiety, prevent Hamlet from taking revenge and he again
indirectly refers to himself. Both character traits might therefore define him as
problematic character, as which he has appeared since being back in Denmark.
Furthermore, Hamlet has expressed exactly the same dilemma, desire for death but fear
of consequences of suicide, in his first soliloquy. This shows that he has had to deal with
the same difficulty throughout the play.
Another theme that runs through this soliloquy is the endurance of sorrow and despair
combined with hesitation. Hamlet thus reveals that he suffers from sorrow and despair
and also hesitates too much. However, none of that is new for Hamlet; he has been
melancholic, unsure and suicidal from scene 1 onwards. Nevertheless, Hamlet appears to
be more aware of his mental state now and thus making progress because he is searching
for reasons and justifications for his actions. Here, Hamlet appears to be trying to justify
his melancholy, hesitation, and perhaps even his suicidal tendencies, by making them
general rather than personal faults:
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, / And thus the native hue of
resolution / Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought, / And enterprises
of great pith and moment / With this regard their currents turn awry, / And
lose the name of action. (3.1.85ff)
The readers/audience realize that Hamlet is now sure that he wants to act although he has
not yet found any suitable answers nor solutions to any of the questions previously raised.
64
This shows that Hamlet is able to escape his vortex of doubts and worries despite his
melancholia, but it is important to note that Hamlet’s reflexions are incomplete since
Ophelia interrupts him.
Furthermore, it can be argued that if Hamlet knows that he was eavesdropped on while
speaking the soliloquy, he played his part very well and did not reveal any of his
intentions, despite some allusions to certain issues he has been dealing with. However,
since he does not want Ophelia to hear any of his thoughts, it might also be possible that
he just does not know that he has been eavesdropped on.
Throughout the soliloquy, Hamlet considers general concerns rather than his own
problems, but it is possible to make certain references to Hamlet himself. A real reason
for him speaking the soliloquy cannot be defined, but he again determines his character
very well through speaking of anxiety, uncertainty, cowardice and hesitation, which all
seem to be Hamlet’s traits. Thus, Hamlet also realises his own cowardice, which is
reflected in thinking too much as well as in his inactiveness as far as his father’s murder
and his mother’s sudden marriage are concerned. His thoughts and feelings appear in a
more organised order and the whole soliloquy conveys a silent atmosphere.
Thus, it is possible to describe Hamlet’s fourth soliloquy as a ‘soliloquy of reflection’, as
outlined above, and as a ‘soliloquy of conflict’ because Hamlet struggles with uncertainty
and does not find suitable answers to his questions (cf. Pfister 1993: 136). However, it
can be argued that Hamlet at least comes to understand his personality fully, but does not
seem to have the ability to change it. He also appears to make the decision that it is not
worth the risk to kill himself.
4.2.7.5 “’Tis now the very witching time of night” (3.2.358-369)
Hamlet’s motivation to deliver his fifth soliloquy is to express rage that his uncle
Claudius has left the play early, which he sees as proof of the King’s guilt; in the
following lines Hamlet is full of vindictive thoughts and finally ready to take revenge:
’Tis now the very witching time of night, / When churchyards yawn, and
hell itself breathes out / Contagion to this world. Now could I drink hot
65
blood, / And do such bitter business as the day / Would quake to look on.
(3.2.358ff)
The readers/audience realize Hamlet’s pleasure about what has just happened and they
see that he appears more confident: Hamlet is now strongly determined and full of rage
after a long time of melancholy and sadness, giving the soliloquy a completely different
mood from the previous ones. Hamlet has now double-proof of his uncle’s guilt regarding
the murder of his father. However, instead of acting immediately, he is delayed again,
this time by his mother Gertrude, who is furious about his arranging the play and who
wants to see Hamlet and speak to him after his soliloquy. Although Hamlet’s mother does
not directly interrupt him, hesitation can again be defined here, also as an important
theme that runs through the whole play. Even if Hamlet wants to take revenge now, he is
delayed and cannot really take advantage of his current mental state.
For the first time, Hamlet decides to drop the mask, to stop hiding and show his mother
exactly how disgusted he is with her actions and why (“Let me be cruel, not unnatural. / I
will speak daggers to her, but use none. / My tongue and soul in this be hypocrites- / How
in my words somever she be shent, / To give them seals never my soul consent.”
3.2.365ff). Thus, his thoughts appear in much more organised order than ever before and
whereas he reflected on previous incidents in the first part of the soliloquy, he now states
his plans on how to behave in the conversation with his mother that is to follow.
Furthermore, in these lines the readers/audience notice Hamlet’s dichotomy between
wanting to kill his mother and restriction.
Hamlet now appears to have completely changed his attitude and behaviour; whereas he
behaved melancholic and sad about not being able to show his true feelings and
struggled with his inability to implement his plan to take revenge on his uncle in his
previous soliloquies, he now seems to be determined and strong, as if he were finally
able to seek revenge.
Hamlet uses his fifth soliloquy to express his hatred for his uncle, whom he now believes
to be his father’s murderer. As he reflects on previous incidents, this is clearly a
‘soliloquy of reflection’. Since he also reveals his plans for how to confront his mother. it
66
is also a ‘soliloquy of planning’, which is advantageous to the readers/audience, as it
grants them ‘superior audience awareness’ (cf. Pfister 1993: 136; 51).
4.2.7.6 “Now might I do it pat, now a is praying, / And now I’ll do’t” (3.3.73-96)
On the way to his mother, Hamlet passes by a praying Claudius; with fresh proof of his
uncle’s guilt and his vindictive thoughts at their peak, Hamlet is ready to kill his uncle
but is stopped by the following reflection: “Now might I do it pat, now a is praying, / And
now I’ll do’t, / and so a goes to heaven, / And so am I revenged” (3.3.73ff). He considers
that if Claudius is killed while praying then his soul will go to heaven despite any
atrocities and thus, he decides not to do so (cf. Clemen 1985: 127), which is shown in the
following line: “That would be scanned” (3.3.75). This confirms that Hamlet is not only a
very clever young man who thinks a lot about what he is doing but also shows an extra
vindictive side to Hamlet, considering that he does not only want his uncle to suffer on
earth, but for eternity.
In this context it is necessary to consider the concept of ‘dramatic irony’ (cf. Höfele
2004: 254), although this is a borderline case: Hamlet cannot take revenge at the very
moment when he is at his most motivated and his victim most vulnerable. The
readers/audience realize that Hamlet becomes a sad hero whose plans are constantly
thwarted (cf. Höfele 2004: 256f). Pfister defines the term ‘dramatic irony’ as something
that refers
… to the ironic contradictions that are created when the internal and
external communication systems conflict with each other. This always
happens whenever the superior awareness of the audience adds an
additional layer of meaning to either the verbal utterance or the non-verbal
behaviour of a figure on stage in such a way as to contradict or undermine
the meaning intended by that figure. (Pfister 1993: 56)
However, Hamlet’s assumption is wrong; Claudius’ monologue reveals that he is in a
praying posture but by no means praying: “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below.
/ Words without thoughts never to heaven go.” (3.3.97f) (cf. Höfele 2004: 254). Although
this interpretation is less than sincere, it again proves that Hamlet’s main problem is
67
hesitation; on the one hand caused by himself, but on the other hand also caused due to
certain people as well as incidents that keep him from taking revenge.
Throughout the first part of the soliloquy, Hamlet wrestles with the consequences of
killing his uncle while he is praying: “A villain kills my father, and for that / I, his sole
son, do this same villain send / To heaven. / O, this is hire and salary, not revenge!”
(3.3.76ff). Thus, the reason to speak his sixth soliloquy is to consider the possible
outcomes and come to the decision not to kill his uncle now (“And am I then revenged /
To take him in the purging of his soul, / When he is fit and seasoned for his passage? /
No.” 3.3.84ff).
Although the interpretation above is the most probable, it also seems as if Hamlet is
trying to find reasons not to take revenge; thus his inaction would stem not only from
uncertainty, but also from an unwillingness to act. Considering this argument, Hamlet is
unable to develop, remaining a person who cannot put his plans into action.
In the second part of this soliloquy, Hamlet argues that there might be better occasions to
kill his uncle than this, and thus does not follow through with his plan (“When he is
drunk asleep, or in his rage, / Or in th’incestuous pleasure of his bed, / At gaming,
swearing, or about some act / That has no relish of salvation in’t, / Then trip him that his
heels may kick at heaven, / And that his soul may be as damned and black / As hell
whereto it goes.” 3.3.89ff). While Hamlet shows himself to be very motivated to kill his
uncle as soon as the occasion presents itself, the audience/reader remains uncertain as to
whether Hamlet will indeed be able to carry out his plans should the opportunity present
itself. Again, it seems as if Hamlet is only powerful as far as words are concerned and
remains largely inactive.
In his sixth soliloquy, Hamlet again reflects on his desire for retribution and, although he
is determined, motivated and full of rage, he nevertheless finds pretences not to
implement what he has planned. In comparison to the previous soliloquies, this one does
not show any sadness, melancholy, nor confusion but questions and considerations while
being enraged.
68
Thus, Hamlet can be said to have lost his melancholy and uncertainty but, despite his
newfound motivation and anger, remains unable to act. Overall, the soliloquy can be
defined as a ‘soliloquy of reflection’ as well as a ‘soliloquy of decision’ (cf. Pfister 1993:
136).
4.2.7.7 “How all occasions do inform against me” (4.4.9.22-9.56)
The reason for Hamlet to speak his final soliloquy is primarily to express regret for his
passivity; especially when compared to Fortinbras, who is shown to be courageous and
active, Hamlet finds himself lacking: “What is a man / If his chief good and market of his
time / Be but to sleep and feed? – a beast, no more.” 4.4.9.23ff.
Never before has Hamlet understood and reflected his passivity in so much detail as in
this soliloquy. In the lines: “Sure, he that made us with such large discourse, / Looking
before and after, gave us not / That capability and god-like reason / To fust in us
unused.” (4.4.9.26ff), Hamlet realizes the need to fight for one’s ideas and beliefs but
acknowledges the fact that he has only done so in his thoughts, never having put his plans
into action.
Hamlet, in this final soliloquy, characterizes himself: “Now whether it be / Bestial
oblivion, or some craven scruple / Of thinking too precisely on th’event- / A thought
which, quartered, hath but one part wisdom / And ever three parts coward-“ (4.4.9.29ff).
He seems to understand that he has had reason, will, strength and means of implementing
all his plans and ideas but has never used them to their full potential (“– I do not know /
Why yet I live to say ‘This thing’s to do’, / Sith I have cause, and will, and strength, and
means, To do’t” 4.4.9.33ff).
Although Hamlet’s determination and fury seem dampened, here, his thoughts are more
logically organised than in his first soliloquies, and he is now more self-possessed and
calmer than he was at the beginning of the play. Thus, it is possible to argue that he
accepts the fact that he will be unable to carry out his revenge and that, in this soliloquy,
he has finally accepted that it is too late to put his plans into action.
69
Hamlet praises people who, unlike himself, have the courage to fight for their beliefs, do
not think about the risk of dying and are unafraid of the dangers they might face; in this
context, as indicated above, he praises his opposite, Fortinbras. As Höfele (2004) points
out, Hamlet contrasts his own inability to act with Fortinbras’ excessive desire for action
in this soliloquy (cf. Höfele 2004: 246); Hamlet expresses his desire to be more like
Fortinbras in the following lines:
Examples gross as earth exhort me, / Witness this army of such mass and
charge, / Led by a delicate and tender prince, / Whose spirit with divine
ambition puffed / Makes mouths at the invisible event, / Exposing what is
mortal and unsure / To all that fortune, death, and danger dare, / Even for
an eggshell. (4.4.9.36ff)
While Fortinbras might look like Hamlet, being “delicate and tender”, he is able to stand
up and fight. Hamlet expresses the belief that one has to adhere to a cause, no matter how
small, when honour is involved (“Rightly to be great / Is not to stir without great
argument, / But greatly to find quarrel in a straw / When honour’s at the stake.”
4.4.9.43ff) but, even though the murder of his own father is clearly a matter of honour,
Hamlet has not been able to fight for his revenge.
The realization that he should be fighting for his and his father’s honour leads Hamlet to
a mental state of self-pity:
How stand I, then, / That have a father killed, a mother stained, /
Excitements of my reason and my blood, / And let all sleep while, to my
shame, I see / The imminent death of twenty thousand men / That, for a
fantasy and trick of fame, / Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot /
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause, / Which is not tomb enough
and continent / To hide the slain. (4.4.9.46ff)
Again, Fortinbras’ army is praised for courage and strength while Hamlet describes
himself as passive in comparison.
Suddenly, Hamlet changes his mood and decides to concentrate fully on the task of
revenge: “O, from this time forth / My thoughts be bloody or be nothing worth!”
(4.4.9.55f). On the one hand, the readers/audience realize that Hamlet has changed within
his final soliloquy, showing an ability to adapt when he stops questioning and accusing
70
himself and decides to finally seek revenge. On the other hand, Hamlet’s commanding
his thoughts to be “bloody” and to seek revenge sound ironic because the
readers/audience have already seen a pattern of Hamlet being unable to act even in his
most vengeful mood.
To summarize, in Hamlet’s final soliloquy, Fortinbras functions as mirror to show
Hamlet how he should act. Thus, it is possible to consider Hamlet’s seventh soliloquy as
a ‘soliloquy of reflection’. As he also analyses and questions himself, it can further be
described as a ‘soliloquy of self-description’ (cf. Pfister 1993: 136).
4.2.8 Themes in Hamlet’s soliloquies
This sub-chapter discusses some of the themes of Hamlet’s thoughts, which are partly
responsible for his character change.
As has been shown, Hamlet speaks honestly about his fears, thoughts and dreams only in
his soliloquies, within which a certain character development can be traced. While the
first three soliloquies show his melancholy and indecision, from the fourth soliloquy
onwards, his thoughts become more focussed and his demeanour more determined and
vengeful. Thus, one could argue that the very character traits Hamlet seems to have “lost”
in the play’s opening scenes are finally regained.
Hamlet is a very complex, introverted character who suffers from an inability to act due
to the miseries he has experienced. He has great difficulty accepting his fate; his constant
questioning of the status quo leads to ever-increasing introversion and depression. The
predominant theme of his reflections is death and a potential afterlife. This theme of
mortality and a potential transcendental sphere is established in his first soliloquy, when
he first expresses his wish for death: “O that this too too solid flesh would melt” 1.2.129.
While Hamlet wants to put an end to his life and all its tragedies, he states several times
that he is afraid of what might come after death. As he is unsure whether death will
produce, as he desires, an end to his earthly suffering, or, as he fears, it will lead only to
further suffering and punishment in the beyond, he decides against suicide.
71
Other important themes are the loss of belief in mankind and loss of trust; in other words,
Hamlet experiences self-doubt and a loss of faith resulting from his mother’s sudden
marriage to his uncle, who is his father’s murderer. Hamlet cannot understand or accept
the fact that his mother has immediately – and incestuously - re-married, without seeming
to mourn his father. With this betrayal, it seems as if his mother has become somebody
unfamiliar. Hamlet often expresses rage and sadness about his mother in his soliloquies
and regrets his inability to express these feelings. Consequently, Hamlet questions
himself and indulges more and more in self-pity, an unfortunate downward spiral. All of
this marks Hamlet as a tragic hero (cf. Höfele 2004: 256f), who is put in the position of
an avenger but is so shocked and confused that he is unable to act.
A third important theme is Hamlet’s self-struggle. From his first soliloquy onwards, he
struggles with his character and his inability to directly express his feelings He envies the
actors for their ability to express feigned feelings, while he himself struggles with the
necessity of concealing his real feelings to put on his “antic disposition”. His self-struggle
is not only emotional but also practical: he berates himself for his tendency to think rather
than take action. However, despite his intention to change, he finds himself unable to act;
despite his desire to return to his old self (i.e. more determined and motivated) expressed
in his final soliloquies, Hamlet finds that he is unable to escape his melancholy.
Another important theme is power and how it affects both individuals and the state.
Hamlet describes his father as a good and powerful leader in his first soliloquy,
contrasting him with his uncle Claudius in an analogy with himself and Hercules (“-
married with mine uncle, / My father’s brother, but no more like my father / Than I to
Hercules” 1.2.151ff). This shows that Hamlet considers Claudius, in contrast to himself
and to his father, to be a bad influence on Denmark and its people. Hamlet believes that it
is Claudius’ evil influence that manipulated and fascinated his mother.
The final theme that can be seen throughout the soliloquies and the play as a whole is that
of appearance vs. reality. While Hamlet reveals that he dislikes playing a role at the
beginning of the play, he soon has to change his attitude when he chooses to feign
madness in order to reveal his uncle’s guilt. He plays his role very well, which proves
72
that, despite his inability to take revenge, he is still capable of putting his plans into
practice. This is particularly important since, due Hamlet’s superior acting abilities, it is
difficult for the other characters to judge Hamlet’s character or the truth value of his
words.
4.3 Comparison of Doctor Faustus and Hamlet
This sub-chapter compares the characters of Doctor Faustus and Hamlet as shown in their
soliloquies and points out similarities and differences between the two.
One similarity is the presence of an internal conflict. Although Doctor Faustus seems to
be very determined when signing the contract with the devil, he nevertheless has sad
moments in which he questions turning away from God. Hamlet also appears motivated
and eager to implement his revenge plan after meeting the ghost; he is, however,
prevented from fulfilling his plans. Thus, both characters can be characterized by their
internal conflict. In this context, Faustus’ biggest problem is his greed for power while
Hamlet’s greatest obstacle is his hesitation and inability to act.
Another similarity between Doctor Faustus and Hamlet is their love of solitude and their
habit of dealing with their fears and problems through self-reflection. Just as Doctor
Faustus is often depicted alone in his study, Hamlet seeks quiet places to think, plan, and
give his feelings free reign. It can thus be argued that both characters isolate themselves
from the world, which could be one reason for their tragic fall. Like Hamlet, who is
unable to take revenge on his uncle despite frequent opportunities, Faustus ignores all
possibilities of repentance.
As far as their soliloquies are concerned, it can be argued that both Hamlet and Faustus
consider their problems before making a plan. Hamlet behaves like Doctor Faustus, who
also has a tendency to consider first, although with not the best of logic, before acting.
Yet, only Faustus seems to put this plans into practice. Whereas Doctor Faustus is able to
immediately implement what he has planned, Hamlet cannot do so. Thus, while both are
analytic characters, Faustus is not plagued by Hamlet’s hesitation.
73
Yet, in their considering the plans, Faustus and Hamlet are also different. Doctor Faustus
shows doubt several times in the play, especially through the Good and the Bad Angel
who represent his good and bad conscience. Hamlet also has doubts, but without any
obvious influence. Faustus is easily distracted from all the wonderful comforts he
believes magic will bring him, whereas Hamlet is caught in his melancholy.
Another difference lies in the development of soliloquies. Whereas a change can be seen
in Hamlet’s soliloquies, namely that the first three reflect on his inner mind, while the
and the other soliloquies contain his plans for revenge, Faustus’ soliloquies remain self-
reflective throughout.
Furthermore, Faustus does not need any obvious tempters to implement his plans, the
Good and the Bad Angel simply function as his good and bad conscience. Hamlet,
however, would never have sought revenge without the ghost’s accusations. Here one has
to keep in mind, though, that Faustus is continually under the influence of
Mephistopheles and Hamlet spends a considerable amount of time hesitating because he
does not fully trust the ghost.
The two characters differ in their attitude towards death: whereas Faustus’ supernatural
“sweet pleasures” distract him from thoughts of death and are his primary motivation for
remaining alive, Hamlet’s fear of death is the driving force that prevents him from
committing suicide. Thus, it can be argued that while Faustus’ self-destructive,
melancholic moments are only short-lived, Hamlet struggles with his melancholy
throughout the entire play.
74
5 Summary
The soliloquies are of particular importance in Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus and
Shakespeare’s Hamlet. They provide an insight into the characters’ innermost feelings
and thoughts and thus function to reveal their character development. Both characters
withdraw from the world to speak their soliloquies and asides and thus become isolated
sad heroes in the end.
Doctor Faustus’ character is revealed through all his soliloquies as he reflects on himself
in all of them. In this context, Faustus is defined as “overreacher” who is bored with the
empirical studies but it is exactly his “overreaching” that is finally responsible for his
own downfall. Whereas he appears as someone whose biggest problem is his greed for
power and wealth and thus seems arrogant in his first soliloquies, his thoughtful moments
increase towards the end of the play, which indicates that he undergoes a character
development. However, although Faustus appears to truly repent in the end, he does not
do so but only wants to escape damnation.
Hamlet, on the other hand, suffers from a ‘melancholy adust’ since he came back to
Denmark due to the many sad and shocking experiences he has to face. Generally, it has
been shown that Hamlet’s melancholy trait is much more developed than any other trait.
Further, it is his melancholy combined with his hesitation which are responsible for him
being unable to act and to implement any of his plans, which define him as a sad hero in
the end. Hamlet, unlike Doctor Faustus, reflects on his inner mind only in his first three
soliloquies, whereas his will to seek revenge becomes apparent in his final soliloquies,
which proves his character development, although it is too late by then.
Both characters’ biggest struggle is with themselves and although they undergo a certain
character development within the plays, they are unable to succeed in the end. Both
characters plunge into their own downfall, which is revealed in their soliloquies.
75
6 Bibliography
6.1 Primary sources
Marlowe, Christopher (1995). “Doctor Faustus” 1588(?). In: Oxford World’s Classics.
Christopher Marlowe. Doctor Faustus and Other Plays (1995). Eds. David Bevington
and Eric Rasmussen. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 186-246.
Shakespeare, William (1986). “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” 1601(?).
In: The Norton Shakespeare (1986). Eds. Steven Greenblatt et al. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, Inc. 1696-1784.
6.2 Secondary sources
Arnold, Morris LeRoy (1911). The Soliloquies of Shakespeare. A Study in Technic. New
York: The Columbia University Press.
Bakeless, John (1970). The Tragicall History of Christopher Marlowe. Volume Two.
1942. Westport: Greenwood Press Publishers.
Bevington, David and Rasmussen, Eric, eds. (1995). Christopher Marlowe. Doctor
Faustus and Other Plays. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Cheney, Patrick, ed. (2004). The Cambridge Companion to Christopher Marlowe.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clemen, Wolfgang (1985). Shakespeares Monologe 1964. München: R. Piper GmbH &
Co. KG.
Clemen, Wolfgang (1987). Shakespeare’s Soliloquies. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
Clemen, Wolfgang (1987). Shakespeare’s Soliloquies. New York: Methuen & Co.
Gill, Roma, ed. (1967). Doctor Faustus. Christopher Marlowe 1965. London: Ernest
Benn Limited.
76
Halliday, F.E. (1986). Shakespeare 1956. London: Thames and Hudson.
Healy, Thomas (1992). New Latitudes. Theory and English Renaissance Literature.
London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.
Healy, Thomas (1994). Christopher Marlowe. Plymouth: Northcote House Publishers
Ltd.
Höfele, Andreas (2004). “Hamlet”. In: Interpretationen – Shakespeares Dramen 2000.
Stuttgart: Reclam.
Keiper, Hugo (2005). Studien zu Christopher Marlowes Doctor Faustus B (1616):
Textedition, Deutsche Prosafassung, Kommentare und Annotationen. Habilitationsschrift
Karl Franzens University of Graz.
Kunze, Andrea (2008). “Christopher Marlowe’s Vision of Sin.” Diplomarbeit Karl
Franzens University of Graz.
Levin, Harry (1973). Christopher Marlowe. The Overreacher. London: Faber & Faber
Limited.
Maguire, Laurie E. (2004). Studying Shakespeare: A Guide to the Plays. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Mangan, Michael (1989). Christopher Marlowe. Doctor Faustus 1987. London:
Penguin Group.
Naeem, Muhammad (2010). “Use of Soliloquy in “Doctor Faustus”.
http://neoenglish.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/use-of-soliloquy-in-“doctor-faustus”/ [2012,
August 20].
Pfister, Manfred (1993). The Theory and Analysis of Drama 1977. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schabert, Ina, ed. (1972). Shakespeare-Handbuch. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag.
77
Simkin, Stevie (2000). A Preface to Marlowe. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
States, Bert O. (1992). Hamlet and the Concept of Character. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Suerbaum, Ulrich (2006). Der Shakespeare-Führer. Stuttgart: Reclam.
The International Marlowe-Shakespeare Society. [n.y.]
http://marloweshakespeare.org/Marlowe.html. [2012, March 6].
Wilson, F.P. (1973). Marlowe and the Early Shakespeare 1953. Oxford: University
Press.
