From Montaigne and Shakespeare by J. M. Robertson. London University Press.
The first requirement in the study, obviously, is an exact statement of
the coincidences of phrase and thought in Shakespeare and Montaigne. Not
that such coincidences are the main or the only results to be looked
for; rather we may reasonably expect to find Shakespeare's thought often
diverging at a tangent from that of the writer he is reading, or even
directly gainsaying it. But there can be no solid argument as to such
indirect influence until we have fully established the direct influence,
and this can only be done by exhibiting a considerable number of
coincidences. M. Chasles, while avowing that "the comparison of texts is
indispensable -- we must undergo this fatigue in order to know to what
extent Shakespeare, between 1603 and 1615, became familiar with
Montaigne" -- strangely enough made no comparison of texts whatever beyond
reproducing the familiar paraphrase in the TEMPEST, from the essay OF
CANNIBALS; and left absolutely unsupported his assertion as to HAMLET,
OTHELLO, and CORIOLANUS.
It is necessary to produce proofs, and to look
narrowly to dates. Florio's translation, though licensed in 1601, was
not published till 1603, the year of the piratical publication of the
First Quarto of HAMLET, in which the play lacks much of its present
matter, and shows in many parts so little trace of Shakespeare's spirit
and versification that, even if we hold the text to have been
imperfectly taken down in shorthand, as it no doubt was, we cannot
suppose him to have at this stage completed his refashioning of the
older play, which is undoubtedly the substratum of his. 1 We must
therefore keep closely in view the divergencies between this text and
that of the Second Quarto, printed in 1604, in which the transmuting
touch of Shakespeare is broadly evident.
It is quite possible that
Shakespeare may have seen parts of Florio's translation before 1603, or
heard passages from it read; or even that he might have read Montaigne
in the original. But as his possession of the translation is made
certain by the preservation of the copy bearing his autograph, and as it
is from Florio that he is seen to have copied in the passages where his
copying is beyond dispute, it is on Florio's translation that we must
I. In order to keep all the evidence in view, we may first of all
collate once more the passage in the TEMPEST with that in the Essays
which it unquestionably follows. In Florio's translation, Montaigne's
"They [Lycurgus and Plato] could not imagine a genuity so
pure and simple, as we see it by experience, nor ever
believe our society might be maintained with so little art
and human combination. It is a nation (would I answer Plato)
that hath no kind of traffic, no knowledge of letters, no
intelligence of numbers, no name of magistrate, nor of
politic superiority; no use of service, of riches, or of
poverty; no contracts, no successions, no dividences, no
occupations, but idle; no respect of kindred, but common; no
apparel, but natural; no manuring of lands, no use of wine,
corn, or metal. The very words that import lying, falsehood,
treason, dissimulation, covetousness, envy, detraction, and
passion, were never heard of amongst them. How dissonant
would he find his imaginary commonwealth from this
perfection?" (Morley's ed. of Florio, p.94)
Compare the speech in which the kind old Gonzalo seeks to divert the
troubled mind of the shipwrecked King Alonso:
"I' the commonwealth I would by contraries
Execute all things: for no kind of traffic
Would I admit; no name of magistrate;
Letters should not be known; no use of service,
Of riches, or of poverty; no contracts,
Succession; bound of land, tilth, vineyard, none:
No use of metal, corn, or wine, or oil:
No occupation, all men idle, all;
And women too: but innocent and pure:
There can be no dispute as to the direct transcription here, where the
dramatist is but incidentally playing with Montaigne's idea, proceeding
to put some gibes at it in the mouths of Gonzalo's rascally comrades;
and it follows that Gonzalo's further phrase, "to excel the golden age,"
proceeds from Montaigne's previous words: "exceed all the pictures
wherewith licentious poesy hath proudly embellished the golden age." The
play was in all probability written in or before 1610. It remains to
show that on his first reading of Florio's Montaigne, in 1603-4,
Shakespeare was more deeply and widely influenced, though the specific
proofs are in the nature of the case less palpable.
II. Let us take first the more decisive coincidences of phrase.
Correspondences of thought which in themselves do not establish their
direct connection, have a new significance when it is seen that other
coincidences amount to manifest reproduction. And such a coincidence we
have, to begin with, in the familiar lines:
"There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will." 2
I pointed out in 1885 that this expression, which does not occur in the
First Quarto HAMLET, corresponds very closely with the theme of
Montaigne's essay, THAT FORTUNE IS OFTENTIMES MET WITHALL IN PURSUIT OF
REASON,3 in which occurs the phrase, "Fortune has more judgment 4
than we," a translation from Menander. But Professor Morley, having had
his attention called to the subject by the work of Mr. Feis, who had
suggested another passage as the source of Shakespeare's, made a more
perfect identification. Reading the proofs of the Florio translation for
his reprint, he found, what I had not observed in my occasional access
to the old folio, not then reprinted, that the very metaphor of
"rough-hewing" occurs in Florio's rendering of a passage in the
Essays:-- 5 "My consultation doth somewhat roughly hew the matter, and
by its first shew lightly consider the same: the main and chief point of
the work I am wont to resign to Heaven." This is a much more exact
coincidence than is presented in the passage cited by Mr. Feis from the
essay OF PHYSIOGNOMY:-- 6 "Therefore do our designs so often
miscarry.... The heavens are angry, and I may say envious of the
extension and large privilege we ascribe to human wisdom, to the
prejudice of theirs, and abridge them so much more unto us by so much
more we endeavour to amplify them." If there were no closer parallel
than that in Montaigne, we should be bound to take it as an expansion of
a phrase in Seneca's AGAMEMNON, 7 which was likely to have become
proverbial. I may add that the thought is often repeated in the Essays,
and that in several passages it compares notably with Shakespeare's lines.
-- And praised be rashness for it -- Let us know
Our indiscretion sometimes serves us well
When our deep plots do pall; and that should learn us
There's a divinity" etc.
Compare the following extracts from Florio's translation:--
"The Daemon of Socrates were peradventure a certain
impulsion or will which without the advice of his discourse
presented itself unto him. In a mind so well purified, and
by continual exercise of wisdom and virtue so well prepared
as his was, it is likely his inclinations (though rash and
inconsiderate) were ever of great moment, and worthy to be
followed. Every man feeleth in himself some image of such
agitations, of a prompt, vehement, and casual opinion. It is
in me to give them some authority, that afford so little to
our wisdom. And I have had some (equally weak in reason and
violent in persuasion and dissuasion, which was more
ordinary to Socrates) by which I have so happily and so
profitably suffered myself to be transported, as they might
perhaps be thought to contain some matter of divine
"Even in our counsels and deliberations, some chance or good
luck must needs be joined to them; for whatsoever our
wisdom can effect is no great matter." 9
"When I consider the most glorious exploits of war, methinks
I see that those who have had the conduct of them employ
neither counsel nor deliberation about them, but for fashion
sake, and leave the best part of the enterprise to fortune;
and on the confidence they have in her aid, they still go
beyond the limits of all discourse. Casual rejoicings and
strange furies ensue among their deliberations." 10 etc.
Compare finally Florio's translation of the lines of Manilius cited by
Montaigne at the end of the 47th Essay of the First Book:
"'Tis best for ill-advis'd, wisdom may fail, 11
Fortune proves not the cause that should prevail,
But here and there without respect doth sail:
A higher power forsooth us overdraws,
And mortal states guides with immortal laws."
It is to be remembered, indeed, that the idea expressed in Hamlet's
words to Horatio is partly anticipated in the rhymed speech of the
Player-King in the play-scene in Act III., which occurs in the First
"Our wills, our fates do so contrary run
That our devices still are overthrown;
Our thoughts are ours, their ends none of our own."
Such a passage, reiterating a familiar commonplace, might seem at first
sight to tell against the view that Hamlet's later speech to Horatio is
an echo of Montaigne. But that view being found justified by the
evidence, and the idea in that passage being exactly coincident with
Montaigne's, while the above lines are only partially parallel in
meaning, we are forced to admit that Shakespeare may have been influenced
by Montaigne even where a partial precedent might be found in his own or
other English work.
III. The phrase "discourse of reason," which is spoken by Hamlet in his
first soliloquy, 12 and which first appears in the Second Quarto, is
not used by Shakespeare in any play before HAMLET; and he uses it again in
TROILUS AND CRESSIDA; 13 while "discourse of thought" appears in
OTHELLO; 14 and "discourse," in the sense of reasoning faculty, is used
in Hamlet's last soliloquy. 15 In English literature this use of the
word seems to be special in Shakespeare's period, 16 and it has been
noted by an admirer as a finely Shakespearean expression. But the
expression "discourse of reason" occurs at least four times in
Montaigne's Essays, and in Florio's translation of them: in the
essay 17 THAT TO PHILOSOPHISE IS TO LEARN HOW TO DIE; again at the
close of the essay 18A demain les affaires; again in the first
paragraph of the APOLOGY OF RAIMOND SEBONDE 19; and yet again in the
chapter on THE HISTORY OF SPURINA; 20 and though it seems to be
scholastic in origin, and occurs once or twice before 1600 in English
books, it is difficult to doubt that, like the other phrase above cited,
it came to Shakespeare through Florio's Montaigne. The word discours is
a hundred times used singly by Montaigne, as by Shakespeare in the phrase
"of such large discourse," for the process of ratiocination.
IV. Then again there is the clue of Shakespeare's use of the word
"consummation" in the revised form of the "To be" soliloquy. This, as
Mr. Feis pointed out, 21 is the word used by Florio as a rendering of
aneantissement in the speech of Socrates as given by Montaigne in the
essay 22 OF PHYSIOGNOMY. Shakespeare makes Hamlet speak of annihilation
as "a consummation devoutly to be wished." Florio has: "If it (death) be
a consummation of one's being, it is also an amendment and entrance into
a long and quiet night. We find nothing so sweet in life as a quiet and
gentle sleep, and without dreams." Here not only do the words coincide
in a peculiar way, but the idea in the two phrases is the same; the
theme of sleep and dreams being further common to the two writings.
Beyond these, I have not noted any correspondences of phrase so precise
as to prove reminiscence beyond possibility of dispute; but it is not
difficult to trace striking correspondences which, though falling short
of explicit reproduction, inevitably suggest a relation; and these it
now behoves us to consider. The remarkable thing is, as regards HAMLET,
that they almost all occur in passages not present in the First Quarto.
V. When we compare part of the speech of Rosencrantz on sedition 23
with a passage in Montaigne's essay, OF CUSTOM, 24 we find a somewhat
close coincidence. In the play Rosencrantz says:
"The cease of Majesty,
Dies not alone; but like a gulf doth draw
What's near with it: it is a massy wheel
Fix'd on the summit of the highest mount,
To whose huge spokes ten thousand lesser things
Are mortised and adjoined; which, when it falls,
Each small annexment, petty consequence,
Attends the boisterous ruin."
"Those who attempt to shake an Estate are commonly the first
overthrown by the fall of it.... The contexture and
combining of this monarchy and great building having been
dismissed and dissolved by it, namely, in her old years,
giveth as much overture and entrance as a man will to like
injuries. Royal majesty doth more hardly fall from the top
to the middle, than it tumbleth down from the middle to the
The verbal correspondence here is only less decisive -- as regards the use
of the word "majesty" -- than in the passages collated by Mr. Morley;
while the thought corresponds as closely.
VI. The speech of Hamlet, 25 "There is nothing either good or bad but
thinking makes it so"; and Iago's "'tis in ourselves that we are thus or
thus," 26 are expressions of a favourite thesis of Montaigne's, to
which he devotes an entire essay. 27 The Shakespearean phrases echo
closely such sentences as:--
"If that which we call evil and torment be neither torment
nor evil, but that our fancy only gives it that quality, it
is in us to change it.... That which we term evil is not so
of itself." ... "Every man is either well or ill according as
he finds himself."
And in the essay 28 OF DEMOCRITUS AND HERACLITUS there is another close
"Therefore let us take no more excuses from external
qualities of things. To us it belongeth to give ourselves
account of it. Our good and our evil hath no dependency but
VII. Hamlet's apostrophe to his mother on
the power of custom -- a passage which, like the
others above cited, first appears in the Second
Quarto -- is similarly an echo of a favourite
proposition of Montaigne, who devotes to it the
essay 29 OF CUSTOM, AND NOT TO CHANGE READILY A
RECEIVED LAW. In that there occur the typical
"Custom doth so blear us that we cannot distinguish the
usage of things.... Certes, chastity is an excellent virtue,
the commodity whereof is very well known; but to use it, and
according to nature to prevail with it, is as hard as it is
easy to endear it and to prevail with it according to
custom, to laws and precepts." "The laws of conscience,
which we say are born of nature, are born of custom."
Again, in the essay OF CONTROLLING ONE'S WILL 30 we have: "Custom is a
second nature, and not less potent."
Hamlet's words are:--
"That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat
Of habits devil, is angel yet in this
That to the use of actions fair and good
He likewise gives a frock or livery
That aptly is put on....
For use can almost change the stamp of nature."
No doubt the idea is a classic commonplace; and in the early TWO
GENTLEMEN OF VERONA 31 we actually have the line, "How use doth breed a
habit in a man;" but here again there seems reason to regard Montaigne
as having suggested Shakespeare's vivid and many-coloured wording of the
idea in the tragedy. Indeed, even the line cited from the early comedy
may have been one of the poet's many later additions to his text.
VIII. A less close but still a noteworthy resemblance is that between
the passage in which Hamlet expresses to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern
the veering of his mood from joy in things to disgust with them, and the
paragraph in the APOLOGY OF RAYMOND SEBONDE in which Montaigne sets
against each other the splendour of the universe and the littleness of
man. Here the thought diverges, Shakespeare making it his own as he always
does, and altering its aim; but the language is curiously similar.
"It goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly
frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory: this
most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave
o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof, fretted with
golden fire, why it appears no other thing to me than a foul
and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work
is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in
form and moving, how express and admirable! in action, how
like an angel! in apprehension, how like a God! the beauty
of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet to me what is
this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me."
Montaigne, as translated by Florio, has:
"Let us see what hold-fast or free-hold he (man) hath in
this gorgeous and goodly equipage.... Who hath persuaded
him, that this admirable moving of heaven's vaults, that the
eternal light of these lamps so fiercely rolling over his
head ... were established ... for his commodity and service?
Is it possible to imagine anything so ridiculous as this
miserable and wretched creature, which is not so much as
master of himself, exposed and subject to offences of all
things, and yet dareth call himself Master and Emperor of
this universe?... [To consider ... the power and domination
these (celestial) bodies have, not only upon our lives and
conditions of our fortune ... but also over our dispositions
and inclinations, our discourses and wills, which they rule,
provoke, and move at the pleasure of their influences.] ...
Of all creatures man is the most miserable and frail, and
therewithal the proudest and disdainfullest. Who perceiveth
himself placed here, amidst the filth and mire of the world
... and yet dareth imaginarily place himself above the
circle of the Moon, and reduce heaven under his feet. It is
through the vanity of the same imagination that he dare
equal himself to God."
The passage in brackets is left here in its place, not as suggesting
anything in Hamlet's speech, but as paralleling a line in MEASURE FOR
MEASURE, to be dealt with immediately. But it will be seen that
the rest of the passage, though turned to quite another purpose than
Hamlet's, brings together in the same way a set of contrasted ideas of
human greatness and smallness, and of the splendour of the midnight
IX. The nervous protest of Hamlet to Horatio on the point of the
national vice of drunkenness, 33 of which all save the beginning is
added in the Second Quarto just before the entrance of the Ghost, has
several curious points of coincidence with Montaigne's essay 34 on THE
HISTORY OF SPURINA, which discusses at great length a matter of special
interest to Shakespeare -- the character of Julius Caesar. In the course of
the examination Montaigne takes trouble to show that Cato's use of the
epithet "drunkard" to Caesar could not have been meant literally; that
the same Cato admitted Caesar's sobriety in the matter of drinking. It is
after making light of Caesar's faults in other matters of personal
conduct that the essayist comes to this decision:
"But all these noble inclinations, rich gifts, worthy
qualities, were altered, smothered, and eclipsed by this
furious passion of ambition.... To conclude, this only vice
(in mine opinion) lost and overthrew in him the fairest
natural and richest ingenuity that ever was, and hath made
his memory abominable to all honest minds."
Compare the exquisitely high-strung lines, so congruous in their excited
rapidity with Hamlet's intensity of expectation, which follow on his
notable outburst on the subject of drunkenness:
"So oft it chances in particular men,
That for some vicious mode of nature in them,
As in their birth (wherein they are not guilty,
Since nature cannot choose its origin),
By the o'ergrowth of some complexion,
Oft breaking down the pales and forts of reason;
Or by some habit that too much o'er-leavens
The form of plausive manners; that these men,--
Carrying, I say, the stamp of one defect;
Being nature's livery, or fortune's star,--
Their virtues else (be they as pure as grace,
As infinite as man may undergo)
Shall in the general censure take corruption
From that particular fault...."
Even the idea that "nature cannot choose its origin" is suggested by the
context in Montaigne. 35 Shakespeare's estimate of Caesar, of course,
diverged from that of the essay.
X. I find a certain singularity of coincidence between the words of King
Claudius on kingship:
"There's such divinity doth hedge a king,
That treason can but peep to what it would,
Acts little of his will,"
and a passage in the essay 36 OF THE INCOMMODITY OF GREATNESS:
"To be a king, is a matter of that consequence, that only by
it he is so. That strange glimmering and eye-dazzling light,
which round about environeth, over-casteth and hideth from
us: our weak sight is thereby bleared and dissipated, as
being filled and obscured by that greater and
The working out of the metaphor here gives at once to Shakespeare's terms
"divinity" and "can but peep" a point not otherwise easily seen; but the
idea of a dazzling light may be really what was meant in the play; and
one is tempted to pronounce the passage a reminiscence of Montaigne.
Here, however, it has to be noted that in the First Quarto we have the
"There's such divinity doth wall a king
That treason dares not look on."
And if Shakespeare had not seen or heard the passage in Montaigne before
the publication of Florio's folio--which, however, he may very well have
done--the theory of reminiscence here cannot stand.
XI. In Hamlet's soliloquy on the passage of the army of Fortinbras--one
of the many passages added in the Second Quarto--there is a strong
general resemblance to a passage in the essay OF DIVERSION. 37 Hamlet
first remarks to the Captain:
"Two thousand souls and twenty thousand ducats
Will not debate the question of this straw:
This is the imposthume of much wealth and peace;"
and afterwards soliloquises:
"Examples gross as earth exhort me:
Witness, this army of such mass and charge,
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit, by divine ambition puff'd,
Makes mouths at the invisible event;
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death, and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great,
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw.
When honour is at stake....
....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...."
Montaigne has the same general idea in the essay OF DIVERSION:
"If one demand that fellow, what interest he hath in such a
siege: The interest of example (he will say) and common
obedience of the Prince: I nor look nor pretend any benefit
thereby ... I have neither passion nor quarrel in the
matter. Yet the next day you will see him all changed, and
chafing, boiling and blushing with rage, in his rank of
battle, ready for the assault. It is the glaring reflecting
of so much steel, the flashing thundering of the cannon, the
clang of trumpets, and the rattling of drums, that have
infused this new fury and rancour in his swelling veins. A
frivolous cause, will you say? How a cause? There needeth
none to excite our mind. A doting humour without body,
without substance, overswayeth it up and down."
The thought recurs in the essay, OF CONTROLLING ONE'S WILL. 38
"Our greatest agitations have strange springs and ridiculous
causes. What ruin did our last Duke of Burgundy run into,
for the quarrel of a cart-load of sheep-skins?... See why
that man doth hazard both his honour and life on the fortune
of his rapier and dagger; let him tell you whence the cause
of that confusion ariseth, he cannot without blushing; so
vain and frivolous is the occasion."
And the idea in Hamlet's lines "rightly to be great," etc., is suggested
in the essay OF REPENTING, 39 where we have:
"The nearest way to come unto glory were to do that for
conscience which we do for glory.... The worth of the mind
consisteth not in going high, but in going orderly. Her
greatness is not exercised in greatness; in mediocrity it
In the essay OF EXPERIENCE 40 there is a sentence partially expressing
the same thought, which is cited by Mr. Feis as a reproduction:
"The greatness of the mind is not so much to draw up, and
hale forward, as to know how to range, direct, and
circumscribe itself. It holdeth for great what is
sufficient, and sheweth her height in loving mean things
better than eminent."
Here, certainly, as in the previous citation, the idea is not identical
with that expressed by Hamlet. But the elements he combines are there;
and again, in the essay OF SOLITARINESS 41 we have the picture of the
soldier fighting furiously for the quarrel of his careless king, with
the question: "Who doth not willingly chop and counter-change his
health, his ease, yea his life, for glory and reputation, the most
unprofitable, vain, and counterfeit coin that is in use with us."
And yet again the thought crops up in the APOLOGY OF RAYMOND SEBONDE:
"This horror-causing array of so many thousands of armed
men, so great fury, earnest fervour, and undaunted courage,
it would make one laugh to see on how many vain occasions it
is raised and set on fire.... The hatred of one man, a
spite, a pleasure ... causes which ought not to move two
scolding fishwives to catch one another, is the soul and
motive of all this hurly-burly."
XII. Yet one more of Hamlet's sayings peculiar to the revised form of
the play seems to be an echo of a thought of Montaigne's. At the outset
of the soliloquy last quoted from, Hamlet says:--
"What is a man
If his chief good and market of his time,
Be but to sleep and feed? A beast; no more.
Sure He that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and godlike reason
To fust in us unused."
The bearing of the thought in the soliloquy, where Hamlet spasmodically
applies it to the stimulation of his vengeance, is certainly never given
to it by Montaigne, who has left on record 42 his small approbation of
revenge; but the thought itself is there, in the essay 43 ON GOODS AND
"Shall we employ the intelligence Heaven hath bestowed upon
us for our greatest good, to our ruin, repugning nature's
design and the universal order and vicissitude of things,
which implieth that every man should use his instrument and
means for his own commodity?"
Again, there is a passage in the essay OF THE AFFECTION OF FATHERS TO
THEIR CHILDREN, 44 where there occurs a specific coincidence of phrase,
the special use of the term "discourse," which we have already traced
from Shakespeare to Montaigne; and where at the same time the contrast
between man and beast is drawn, though not to the same purpose as in the
speech of Hamlet:--
"Since it hath pleased God to endow us with some capacity of
discourse, that as beasts we should not servilely be
subjected to common laws, but rather with judgment and
voluntary liberty apply ourselves unto them, we ought
somewhat to yield unto the simple authority of Nature, but
not suffer her tyrannically to carry us away; only reason
ought to have the conduct of our inclinations."
Finally we have a third parallel, with a slight coincidence of terms, in
the essay 45 OF GIVING THE LIE:
"Nature hath endowed us with a large faculty to entertain
ourselves apart, and often calleth us unto it, to teach us
that partly we owe ourselves unto society, but in the better
part unto ourselves."
It may be argued that these, like one or two of the other sayings above
cited as echoed by Shakespeare from Montaigne, are of the nature of
general religious or ethical maxims, traceable to no one source; and if
we only found one or two such parallels, their resemblance of course
would have no evidential value, save as regards coincidence of terms.
For this very passage, for instance, there is a classic original, or at
least a familiar source, in Cicero, 46 where the commonplace of the
contrast between man and beast is drawn in terms that come in a general
way pretty close to Hamlet's. This treatise of Cicero was available to
Shakespeare in several English translations; 47 and only the fact that we
find no general trace of Cicero in the play entitles us to suggest a
connection in this special case with Montaigne, of whom we do find so
many other traces. It is easy besides to push the theory of any
influence too far; and when for instance we find Hamlet saying he fares
"Of the chameleon's dish: I eat the air, promise-crammed," it would be
as idle to assume a reminiscence of a passage of Montaigne on the
chameleon 48 as it would be to derive Hamlet's phrase "A king of shreds
and patches" from Florio's rendering in the essay 49 OF THE INCONSTANCY
OF OUR ACTIONS:
"We are all framed of flaps and patches, and of so
shapeless and diverse a contexture, that every piece and
every moment playeth his part."
In the latter case we have a mere coincidence of idiom; in the former a
proverbial allusion. 50 An uncritical pursuit of such mere accidents of
resemblance has led Mr. Feis to such enormities as the assertion that
Shakespeare's contemporaries knew Hamlet's use of his tablets to be a
parody of the "much-scribbling Montaigne," who had avowed that he made
much use of his; the assertion that Ophelia's "Come, my coach!" has
reference to Montaigne's remark that he has known ladies who would
rather lend their honour than their coach; and a dozen other
propositions, if possible still more amazing. But when, with no
foregone conclusion as to any polemic purpose on Shakespeare's part, we
restrict ourselves to real parallels of thought and expression; when we
find that a certain number of these are actually textual; when we find
further that in a single soliloquy in the play there are several
reproductions of ideas in the essays, some of them frequently recurring
in Montaigne; and when finally it is found that, with only one
exception, all the passages in question have been added to the play in
the Second Quarto, after the publication of Florio's translation, it
seems hardly possible to doubt that the translation influenced the
dramatist in his work.
Needless to say, the influence is from the very start of that high sort
in which he that takes becomes co-thinker with him that gives,
Shakespeare's absorption of Montaigne being as vital as Montaigne's own
assimilation of the thought of his classics. The process is one not of
surface reflection, but of kindling by contact; and we seem to see even
the vibration of the style passing from one intelligence to the other;
the nervous and copious speech of Montaigne awakening Shakespeare to a
new sense of power over rhythm and poignant phrase, at the same time
that the stimulus of the thought gives him a new confidence in the
validity of his own reflection. Some cause there must have been for this
marked species of development in the dramatist at that particular time:
and if we find pervading signs of one remarkable new influence, with no
countervailing evidence of another adequate to the effect, the inference
is about as reasonable as many which pass for valid in astronomy. For it
will be found, on the one hand, that there is no sign worth considering
of a Montaigne influence on Shakespeare before HAMLET; and, on the other
hand, that the influence to some extent continues beyond that play.
Indeed, there are still further minute signs of it there, which should
be noted before we pass on.
XIII. Among parallelisms of thought of a less direct kind, one may be
traced between an utterance of Hamlet's and a number of Montaigne's
sayings on the power of imagination and the possible equivalence of
dream life and waking life. In his first dialogue with Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern, where we have already noted an echo of Montaigne, Hamlet
"O God! I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a
king of infinite space; were it not that I have bad dreams;"
and Guildenstern answers:
"Which dreams, indeed, are ambition; for the very substance
of the ambitious is merely the shadow of a dream."
The first sentence may be compared with a number in Montaigne, 51 of
which the following 52 is a type:
"Man clean contrary [to the Gods] possesseth goods in
imagination and evils essentially. We have had reason to
make the powers of our imagination to be of force, for all
our felicities are but in conceipt, and as it were in a
while the reply of Guildenstern further recalls several of the passages
XIV. Another apparent parallel of no great importance, but of more
verbal closeness, is that between Hamlet's jeering phrase: 53 "Your
worm is your only emperor for diet," and a sentence in the APOLOGY: "The
heart and the life of a great and triumphant emperor are the dinner of a
little worm," which M. Stapfer compares further with the talk of Hamlet
in the grave-diggers' scene. Here, doubtless, we are near the level of
proverbial sayings, current in all countries.
XV. As regards HAMLET, I can find no further parallelisms so direct as
any of the foregoing, except some to be considered later, in connection
with the "To be" soliloquy. I do not think it can be made out that, as
M. Chasles affirmed, Hamlet's words on his friendship for Horatio can be
traced directly to any of Montaigne's passages on that theme. "It would
be easy," says M. Chasles, "to show in Shakespeare the branloire
perenne54 of Montaigne, and the whole magnificent passage on
friendship, which is found reproduced (se trouve reporte) in HAMLET."
The idea of the world as a perpetual mutation is certainly prevalent in
Shakespeare's work; but I can find no exact correspondence of phrase
between Montaigne's pages on his love for his dead friend Etienne de la
Boetie and the lines in which Hamlet speaks of his love for Horatio. He
rather gives his reasons for his love than describes the nature and
completeness of it in Montaigne's way; and as regards the description
of Horatio, it could have been independently suggested by such a
treatise as Seneca's DE CONSTANTIA SAPIENTIS, which is a monody on the
theme with which it closes: esse aliquem invictum, esse aliquem in quem
nihil fortuna possit -- "to be something unconquered, something against
which fortune is powerless." In the fifth section the idea is worded in
a fashion that could have suggested Shakespeare's utterance of it; and he
might easily have met with some citation of the kind. But, on the other
hand, this note of passionate friendship is not only new in Shakespeare
but new in HAMLET, in respect of the First Quarto, in which the main
part of the speech to Horatio does not occur, and in view of the
singular fact that in the first Act of the play as it stands Hamlet
greets Horatio as a mere acquaintance; and it is further to be noted
that the description of Horatio as "one in suffering all that suffers
nothing" is broadly suggested by the quotation from Horace in
Montaigne's nineteenth chapter (which, as we have already seen,
impressed Shakespeare), and by various other sayings in the Essays. After
the quotation from Horace (Non vultus instantis tyranni), in the
Nineteenth Essay, Florio's translation runs:
"She (the soul) is made mistress of her passions and
concupiscences, lady of indigence, of shame, of poverty, and
of all fortune's injuries. Let him that can, attain to this
advantage. Herein consists the true and sovereign liberty,
that affords us means wherewith to jest and make a scorn of
force and injustice, and to deride imprisonment, gyves, or
Again, in the essay OF THREE COMMERCES OR SOCIETIES, 55 we have this:
"We must not cleave so fast unto our humours and
dispositions. Our chiefest sufficiency is to supply
ourselves to diverse fashions. It is a being, but not a
life, to be tied and bound by necessity to one only course.
The goodliest minds are those that have most variety and
pliableness in them.... Life is a motion unequal, irregular,
" ... My fortune having inured and allured me, even from my
infancy, to one sole, singular, and perfect amity, hath
verily in some sort distasted me from others.... So that it
is naturally a pain unto me to communicate myself by halves,
and with modification....
"I should commend a high-raised mind that could both bend
and discharge itself; that wherever her fortune might
transport her, she might continue constant.... I envy those
which can be familiar with the meanest of their followers,
and vouchsafe to contract friendship and frame discourse
with their own servants."
Again, la Boetie is panegyrised by Montaigne for his rare poise and
firmness of character; 56 and elsewhere in the essays we find many
allusions to the ideal of the imperturbable man, which Montaigne has in
the above cited passages brought into connection with his ideal of
friendship. It could well be, then--though here we cannot argue the
point with confidence--that in this as in other matters the strong
general impression that Montaigne was so well fitted to make on
Shakespeare's mind was the source of such a change in the conception and
exposition of Hamlet's relation to Horatio as is set up by Hamlet's
protestation of his long-standing admiration and love for his friend.
Shakespeare's own relations with one or other of his noble patrons would
make him specially alive to such suggestion.
XVI. We now come to the suggested resemblance between the "To be or not
to be" soliloquy and the general tone of Montaigne on the subject of
death. On this resemblance I am less disposed to lay stress now than I
was on a first consideration of the subject thirteen years ago. While I
find new coincidences of detail on a more systematic search, I am less
impressed by the alleged general resemblance of tone. In point of fact,
the general drift of Hamlet's soliloquy is rather alien to the general
tone of Montaigne on the same theme. That tone, as we shall see,
harmonises much more nearly with the speech of the Duke to Claudio, on
the same theme, in MEASURE FOR MEASURE. What really seems to subsist in
the "To be" soliloquy, after a careful scrutiny, is a series of echoes
of single thoughts; but there is the difficulty that some of these occur
in the earlier form of the soliloquy in the First Quarto, a circumstance
which tends--though not necessarily 57 --to throw a shade of doubt on
the apparent echoes in the finished form of the speech. We can but weigh
the facts as impartially as may be.
First, there is the striking coincidence of the word "consummation"
(which appears only in the Second Quarto), with Florio's translation of
aneantissement in the essay OF PHYSIOGNOMY, as above noted. Secondly,
there is a curious resemblance between the phrase "take arms against a
sea of troubles" and a passage in Florio's version of the same essay,
which has somehow been overlooked in the disputes over Shakespeare's line.
"I sometimes suffer myself by starts to be surprised with
the pinchings of these unpleasant conceits, which, whilst I
arm myself to expel or wrestle against them, assail and beat
me. Lo here another huddle or tide of mischief, that on the
neck of the former came rushing upon me."
There arises here the difficulty that Shakespeare's line had been
satisfactorily traced to AElian's 58 story of the Celtic practice of
rushing into the sea to resist a high tide with weapons; and the matter
must, I think, be left open until it can he ascertained whether the
statement concerning the Celts was available to Shakespeare in any
translation or citation. 59
Again, the phrase "Conscience doth make cowards of us all" is very like
the echo of two passages in the essay 60 OF CONSCIENCE: "Of such
marvellous working power is the sting of conscience: which often
induceth us to bewray, to accuse, and to combat ourselves"; "which as it
doth fill us with fear and doubt, so doth it store us with assurance and
trust;" and the lines about "the dread of something after death" might
point to the passage in the Fortieth Essay, in which Montaigne cites the
saying of Augustine that "Nothing but what follows death, makes death to
be evil" (malam mortem non facit, nisi quod sequitur mortem) cited by
Montaigne in order to dispute it.
The same thought, too, is dealt with
in the essay 61 on A CUSTOM OF THE ISLE OF CEA, which contains a
passage suggestive of Hamlet's earlier soliloquy on self-slaughter. But,
for one thing, Hamlet's soliloquies are contrary in drift to Montaigne's
argument; and, for another, the phrase "Conscience makes cowards of us
all" existed in the soliloquy as it stood in the First Quarto, while the
gist of the idea is actually found twice in a previous play, where it
has a proverbial ring. 62 And "the hope of something after death"
figures in the First Quarto also.
Finally, there are other sources than Montaigne for parts of the
soliloquy, sources nearer, too, than those which have been pointed to in
the Senecan tragedies. There is, indeed, as Dr. Cunliffe has pointed
out, 63 a broad correspondence between the whole soliloquy and the
chorus of women at the end of the second Act of the TROADES, where the
question of a life beyond is pointedly put:
"Verum est? an timidos fabula decepit,
Umbras corporibus vivere conditis?"
It is true that the choristers in Seneca pronounce definitely against
the future life:
"Post mortem nihil est, ipsaque mors nihil....
Rumores vacui verbaque inania,
Et par sollicito fabula somnio."
But wherever in Christendom the pagan's words were discussed, the
Christian hypothesis would be pitted against his unbelief, with the
effect of making one thought overlay the other; and in this fused form
the discussion may easily have reached Shakespeare's eye and ear. So it
would be with the echo of two Senecan passages noted by Mr. Munro in the
verses on "the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller
returns." In the HERCULES FURENS 64 we have:
"Nemo ad id sero venit, unde nunquam
Quum semel venit potuit reverti;"
and in the HERCULES OETAEUS 65 there is the same thought:
"regnum canis inquieti
Unde non unquam remeavit ullus."
But here, as elsewhere, Seneca himself was employing a standing
sentiment, for in the best known poem of Catullus we have:
"Qui nunc it per iter tenebricosum
Illuc, unde negant redire quemquam. " 66
And though there was in Shakespeare's day no English translation of
Catullus, the commentators long ago noted 67 that in Sandford's
translation of Cornelius Agrippa (? 1569), there occurs the phrase, "The
countrie of the dead is irremeable, that they cannot return," a fuller
parallel to the passage in the soliloquy than anything cited from the
Finally, in Marlowe's EDWARD II., 68 written before 1593, we have:
"Weep not for Mortimer,
That scorns the world, and, as a traveller,
Goes to discover countries yet unknown." 69
So that, without going to the Latin, we have obvious English sources for
notable parts of the soliloquy.
Thus, though Shakespeare may (1) have seen part of the Florio translation,
or separate translations of some of the essays, before the issue of the
First Quarto; or may (2) easily have heard that very point discussed by
Florio, who was the friend of his friend Jonson, or by those who had
read the original; or may even (3) himself have read in the original;
and though further it seems quite certain that his "consummation
devoutly to be wished" was an echo of Florio's translation of the
Apology of Socrates; on the other hand we are not entitled to trace the
soliloquy as a whole to Montaigne's stimulation of Shakespeare's thought.
That Shakespeare read Montaigne in the original once seemed probable to
me, as to others; but, on closer study, I consider it unlikely, were it
only because the Montaigne influence in his work begins, as aforesaid,
in HAMLET. Of all the apparent coincidences I have noticed between
Shakespeare's previous plays and the essays, none has any evidential
value. (1) The passage on the music of the spheres in the MERCHANT OF
VENICE 70 recalls the passage on the subject in Montaigne's essay of
CUSTOM; 71 but then the original source is Cicero, IN SOMNIUM
SCIPIONIS, which had been translated into English in 1577. (2)
Falstaff's rhapsody on the virtues of sherris 72 recalls a passage in
the essay OF DRUNKENNESS, 73 but then Montaigne avows that what he says
is the common doctrine of wine-drinkers. (3) Montaigne cites 74 the old
saying of Petronius, that "all the world's a stage," which occurs in AS
YOU LIKE IT; but the phrase itself, being preserved by John of
Salisbury, would be current in England. It is, indeed, said to have been
the motto of the Globe Theatre. Thus, while we are the more strongly
convinced of a Montaigne influence beginning with HAMLET, we are bound
to concede the doubtfulness of any apparent influence before the Second
Quarto. At most we may say that both of Hamlet's soliloquies which touch
on suicide evidently owe something to the discussions set up by
Montaigne's essays. 75
1. See this point discussed in the Free Review of July,
1895: and compare the lately published essay of Mr. John
Corbin, on The Elizabethan Hamlet, (Elkin Matthews, 1895).
2. Hamlet, Act V, scene 2.
3. Book I, Essay 33.
4. Advice in Florio.
5. B. III, Ch. 8. Of the art of conferring.
6. B. III, Ch. 12.
7. Act II, Sc. 1, 144.
8. Book I, ch. II.
9. Book I, ch. 23.
11. Some slip of the pen seems to have occurred in this
confused line. The original Et male consultis pretium est:
prudentia fallax --is sufficiently close to Shakespeare's
12. "O heaven! a beast that wants discourse of reason" (Act
I, Scene 2.)
13. Act II, Sc. 2.
14. Act IV, Scene 2.
15. Act IV, Scene 4.
16. See Furniss's Variorum edition of Hamlet, in loc.
17. B. I, Chap. 19; Edit. Firmin-Didot, vol. i, p. 68.
18. B. II, Chap. 4; Ed. cited, p. 382.
19. B. II, Chap. 12; Ibid, p. 459.
20. B. II, Chap. 33.
21. Shakespere and Montaigne, 1884, p. 88.
22. B. III, Chap. 12.
23. Act III, Scene 3.
24. B. I, ch. 22.
25. Act II, Scene 2.
26. Othello, Act II, Scene 3.
27. B. I, ch. 40, "That the taste of goods or evils doth
greatly depend on the opinion we have of them."
28. B. I, ch. 50.
29. B. I, ch. 22.
30. B. III, ch. 10.
31. Act V, Scene 4.
32. On reverting to Mr. Feis's book I find that in 1884 he
had noted this and others of the above parallels, which I
had not observed when writing on the subject in 1883. In
view of some other parallels and clues drawn by him, our
agreements leave me a little uneasy. He decides, for
instance (p. 93) that Hamlet's phrase "foul as Vulcan's
stithy" is a "sly thrust at Florio" who in his preface calls
himself "Montaigne's Vulcan"; that the Queen's phrase
"thunders in the index" is a reference to "the Index of the
Holy See and its thunders"; and that Hamlet's lines "Why let
the stricken deer go weep" are clearly a satire against
Montaigne, "who fights shy of action." Mr. Feis's book
contains so many propositions of this order that it is
difficult to feel sure that he is ever judicious. Still, I
find myself in agreement with him on some four or five
points of textual coincidence in the two authors.
33. Act I, Scene 4.
34. B. II, Chap. 33.
35. It is further relevant to note that in the essay Of
Drunkenness (ii. 2) Montaigne observes that "drunkenness
amongst others appeareth to me a gross and brutish vice,"
that "the worst estate of man is where he loseth the
knowledge and government of himself," and that "the grossest
and rudest nation that liveth amongst us at this day, is
only that which keepeth it in credit." The reference is to
Germany: but Shakespeare in Othello (Act II, Sc. 3) makes
Iago pronounce the English harder drinkers than either the
Danes or the Hollanders; and the lines:
"This heavy-headed revel, east and west,
Makes us traduced and taxed of other nations;
They clepe us drunkards, and with swinish phrase,
Soil our addition."
might also be reminiscent of Montaigne, though of course
there is nothing peculiar in such a coincidence.
36. B. III, Chap. 7.
37. B. III, Chap. 4.
38. B. III, Chap. 10.
39. B. III, Chap. 2.
40. B. III, Chap. 13.
41. B. I, Chap. 38.
42. B. III, Chap. 4.
43. B. I, Chap. 40.
44. B. II, Chap. 8.
45. B. II, Chap. 18.
46. De Officus i, 4: cf. 30.
47. 1534, 1558, 1583, 1600. See also the compilation
entitled A Treatise of Morall Philosophie by W. Baudwin,
4th enlargement by T. Paulfreyman. 1600, pp. 44-46, where
there is a closely parallel passage from Zeno as well as
that of Cicero.
48. Mr. Feis makes this attribution.
49. B. II. Chap. 1.
50. This may fairly be argued, perhaps, even of the
somewhat close parallel, noted by Mr. Feis, between Laertes'
lines (I, 3):
"For nature, crescent, does not grow alone
In thews and bulk, but as this temple waxes
The inward service of the mind and soul
Grows wide withal,"
and Florio's rendering of an extract from Lucretius in the
"The mind is with the body bred, we do behold.
It jointly grows with it, it waxeth old."
Only the slight coincidence of the use of the (then
familiar) verb "wax" in both passages could suggest
imitation in the case of such a well-worn commonplace.
51. See some cited at the close of this essay in another
52. B. II, Chap. 12.
53. Act IV, Scene 3.
54. Le monde est un branloire perenne (Book III, Essay
2). Florio translates that particular sentence: "The world
runs all on wheels" a bad rendering.
55. B. III, Chap. 3.
56. B. II, Chap. 17.
57. It may fairly be laid down as practically certain, from
what we know of the habit of circulating works in manuscript
at that period, and from what Florio tells us in his
preface, that translations of some of the essays had been
passed about before Florio's folio was printed. Varia
Historia, XII, 23.
58. The story certainly had a wide vogue, being found in
Aristotle, Eudemian Ethics, iii, 1, and in Nicolas of
Damascus; while Strabo (vii, ii. Sec. 1) gives it further
currency by contradicting it as regards the Cimbri.
60. B. II, 59.Chap. 5.
61. B. II, Chap. 3.
62. Richard III, I, 4; V, 3.
63. The Influence of Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy, 1893,
64. Actus III, 865-866.
65. Actus IV, 1526-7.
66. This in turn is an echo from the Greek. See note in
67. See Boswell's edition of Malone's Shakespeare, in loc.
68. Yet again, in Marston's Insatiate Countess, the
commentators have noticed the same sentiment.
"Death, From whose stern cave none tracks a backward path."
It was in fact a poetic commonplace.
69. Act 5, Scene 6.
70. Act v, sc. 1.
71. I, 22.
72. 2 H. IV, iv. 3
73. ii, 2
74. ii, 10.
75. So far as I remember, the idea of suicide as a
desertion of one's post without the deity's permission is
first found, in English literature, in Sidney, and he would
find it in Montaigne's essay on the Custom of the Isle of
Cea (edit. Firmin-Didot, i. 367).
How to cite this article:
Robertson, J. M. Montaigne and Shakespeare. London, University Press, 1897. Shakespeare Online. 2 Aug. 2013. < http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/hamlet/hamletandmontaigneh.html >.
"Our religion hath had no surer humane foundation, than the contempt of life. Discourse of reason doth not only call and summon us unto it. For why should we feare to lose a thing, which being lost, cannot be moaned? but also, since we are threatned by so many kinds of death, there is no more inconvenience to feare them all, than to endure one: what matter is it when it commeth, since it is unavoidable? Socrates answered one that told him, The thirty Tyrants have condemned thee to death; 'And Nature them,' said he. What fondnesse is it to carke and care so much, at that instant and passage from all exemption of paine and care? As our birth brought us the birth of all things, so shall our death the end of all things." (That to Philosophize Is to Learn How to Die). Read on...
Did You Know? ... The Theatre was the first London playhouse, built in 1576 by the English actor and entrepreneur James Burbage, father of the great actor and friend of Shakespeare, Richard Burbage. It was located in a northern suburb of London (north of London Wall which bounded the city proper); on the edge of Finsbury Fields, just past Bishopsgate Street, where Shakespeare called home up to 1597. Read on...