Shakespeare’s Suicidal Summary
When piecing it all together what can be made of the totality of Shakespeare’s writings on suicide?
Frequency
Well, for starters, he wrote about suicide much. Shakespeare, in 17 works, discusses suicide or has actual suicide deaths. In 11 of those 17 works, Shakespeare has 20 identifiable characters commit suicide, one make a whole-hearted attempt and a couple more are questionable. In the remaining 6 works, no suicides occur but there is dialogue – to some degree – discussing something about suicide. So, yes, he wrote of it – a lot.
Using frequency, when all is said and done, can it be said Shakespeare had a suicidal mind? To some extent? After peering into his 20 actual suicide deaths can it be said Shakespeare might have been pre-disposed to suicidal thoughts? Might Anne, or Burbage, Heminges and Condell, have said to him at some point ‘soo, Will, you’re writing about self-murder again I see? What’s up with that? Anything you want to talk about?’ Maybe. Did his London friends know something intimate about Shakespeare’s mind and the reason why he wrote of it so often? Possibly.
Was Shakespeare obsessed about suicide? Obsessed might – might – be too strong a word; or, it might not. Fixated? Whatever word best describes the frequency he wrote about it, there is no escaping the fact the act itself and various topics surrounding suicide were given full treatment, often. It might not be too far of a leap to reasonably suggest Shakespeare wrote about suicide – in quantity and depth – more than almost any other subject. Save maybe busted hearts and love. Or, revenge and betrayal. Ok, add mistaken identity and different coloured roses. Fine, maybe he didn’t write about suicide more than any other topic, but still, it shows up with somewhat interesting regularity throughout his career.
Shakespeare’s Decision To Write What He Did
Shakespeare chose to write what he did, obviously. He wrote about historical suicides, invented others. He chose to write about some historical persons who committed suicide as opposed to choosing other historical characters that didn’t commit suicide. Alexander the Great might have made a great afternoon of entertainment. Marcus Aurelius likely would have filled the Globe. However, neither of those great historical persons committed suicide. Instead, some of the historical people he chose to write about killed themselves.
When he wrote about Brutus and Cassius in Julius Caesar he pretty much had to conclude with their actual, real suicides. But, he didn’t have to dialogue their suicides the way he did. He was free to put any kind of spin on their deaths as he pleased. If he thought the Roman view of suicide – that it was noble – was a bunch of hogwash, he could have writ that. He didn’t. See Julius Caesar. Or, The Rape of Lucrece. Or, Antony and Cleopatra. Shakespeare viewed his chosen Roman suicides as honourable, noble and justified. He gave those suicides proper mourning, funerals and burials. He could have portrayed the historical suicides differently if he didn’t agree with them. It’s likely not a stretch to say Shakespeare admired the way Romans culturally viewed suicide and admired the individual Romans who committed suicide.
As for his invented suicides, he was free to frame and shape those suicides as he pleased. Even for the suicides that were not historical but came to Shakespeare via previous literary works, Romeo and Juliet for instance, he was free to dialogue their circumstances anyway he wanted, such as label them sinners against God or criminals against the king or duke. He did not label them as such. Even his characters that he depicted as wicked suicides, think Lady Macbeth or Goneril, weren’t depicted as sinners or criminals; he wrote them as just mad or pathetic. Some suicides he imbued with logic and rational thought.
Like Pontius Pilate, after being asked why he inscribed ‘The King of the Jews’ above the crucified Jesus and is reported to have replied ‘What I have written, I have written,’ so it goes with Shakespeare: ‘What I have written, I have written.’ Modernity would do well to listen.
Identifiable Patterns
Like suicides in real life, not all of Shakespeare’s suicides are created equal; he uses different aspects surrounding suicide when painting the circumstances of a particular character. Shakespeare changes up the many factors that go into depicting those circumstances: methods, motives, identification, how the suicides viewed their own death and how other characters viewed the suicide or their suicidal ideation. Maybe most importantly, Shakespeare changed up the factors, circumstances and dialogue surrounding a particular suicide depending on how he wanted to portray that particular suicide to his audience. Though not all of Shakespeare’s suicides are created equal some over-arching patterns appear through the mist between the lines.
Noble
On balance – not including suicides committed by detestables which will be discussed below – Shakespeare viewed suicide as noble. He chose to dialogue his early Roman suicides as such and, after thinking it through for himself via Hamlet, he agrees with the noble Roman-held view and then post-Hamlet continues his noble Roman-held view.
Understanding And Sympathy
More often than not, Shakespeare dialogued his suicides in such a way the character’s decision to kill themselves was understandable; often, he ensured the audience felt sympathy for the deceased. He connected the suicide with the audience in such a fashion the audience would be able to put themselves in the character’s shoes and come to the conclusion they too might have committed suicide just like the character if presented with the same circumstances. Like, ‘this character is just like me, I probably would have done the same, I don’t blame them one bit.’
This pattern, the pattern showing he elicited understanding and sympathy from his audience, affirms the supposition Shakespeare held a supportive, positive view of suicide as opposed to a disagreeable, negative view. Shakespeare’s positive view of suicide was in direct contrast, and at ideological odds, with the prevailing views of suicide held by the church and state – the two most powerful institutions in 17th century England.
Lack of Madness
Very few of Shakespeare’s suicides were madness-induced suicides which, again, went against one of the prevailing views in 17th century England; there was still a deep-rooted belief suicide was caused by madness or was instigated by the devil. Shakespeare makes clear – abundantly so – suicide need not be driven by madness or Satan; indeed, his depictions of suicide result more from normal emotions – strong emotions – than madness.
Proper Mourning, Funerals And Burials Of Suicides
Contrary to 17th century custom, Shakespeare gave many of his suicides proper mourning, funerals and proper burials. He didn’t have to give his suicides mourning rites, funerals and burials, but he did.
Non-Sinner And Non-Criminal View
When Shakespeare dialogued suicide as a topic his characters quite often referred to the fact suicides were customarily viewed as sinners and criminals, thus espousing the contemporary view. Somewhat interestingly, though, is the fact Shakespeare never labels his actual suicides as such after their death. He made sure his honourable, noble, busted-heart, rational suicides – ones his audience could identify with – shouldn’t be treated as a criminal or a sinner.
Deserved Detestables
Of Shakespeare’s deserved, detestable suicides he ensures these particular suicides invoke no pity or sympathy; think Lady Macbeth, Goneril and Othello. If an audience member might have uttered ‘I don’t blame her’ after Juliet’s suicide, Shakespeare probably would have been pleased if he heard ‘it serves him right’ after Othello’s. Because every suicide is different, in real life and in theatre life, Shakespeare ensures a non-pitiable suicide evoked no pity. His noble suicides received mourning and burials; his detestables received nothing of the sort.
Shakespeare’s Societal Conversation
Shakespeare thought suicide through – from front to back, side to side, top to bottom. He parsed all aspects of suicide from start to conclusion and into the after-life; he looked at it cross-culturally; societal repercussions were dialogued; the sinful and criminal view were woven into his character’s speeches. And when those speeches were spoken on the stage they were overwhelmingly at cross-purposes to the prevailing view.
Your heart breaks when Juliet’s does; you don’t see her as a criminal. You feel Brutus’s honour; you don’t call him a sinner. You understand what Lucrece is feeling. Did Shakespeare write these scenes this way just because? Just on an individual play level, a one off, that just happened to fit what he was writing? Or did he write what he did on purpose, in order to make audiences empathetic towards those that committed suicide, for a reason? Did Shakespeare have an over-arching purpose in mind, one that took shape early in his career that he molded and refined over 25 years? Was there an ulterior motive at work when he decided to present his suicides in the manner he did? Was he hoping to make a societal sea-change in how a nation viewed suicide?
Maybe Shakespeare did want to start a societal-wide conversation. What’s the old saying – life imitates art? If he did want to start the conversation about how suicides were treated and viewed in 17th century England, he undertook it admirably. If he didn’t want to start the conversation about – . No, wait. Actually, there’s no other plausible way to view it and no other plausible explanation than to say Shakespeare did want to change the view of suicide in 17th century England. Proving it otherwise would be a somewhat interesting proof and the Project welcomes any such counter-evidence it might have missed to suggest otherwise.
Shakespeare was instilling – nudging possibly – a new way to view suicide: instead of focusing on, and treating, it as a crime against the king and a sin against God, Shakespeare wanted to switch the narrative in such a way where people would start viewing suicide with understanding and sympathy. By creating empathy for his suicides Shakespeare was, in real time, creating empathy for regular people who had previously committed suicide or those watching his plays who might contemplate it. This is not to say Shakespeare encouraged suicide; rather, he just wanted it viewed through a different lens, to get people to look at it from a different angle, to get people to change the way they looked at suicide. For Shakespeare, suicide wasn’t beset with lunatics, sinners and criminals avoiding accountability; his stage-suicides were rational people, feeling real emotions who saw suicide a fitting decision given their circumstances.
The views Shakespeare held out in his plays undoubtedly doubled as his personally held beliefs. In fact, unlike the chicken and the egg argument, it might be safe to conclude Shakespeare had his personal views on suicide first, then, wrote them into his works. It might be somewhat difficult to suggest Shakespeare had Hamlet conclude what he did if Shakespeare himself held a different view. Was Shakespeare depicting suicide in the favourable terms he did in order to justify to himself, in his own mind, something more personal? Maybe.
Investigative Findings
Based on Shakespeare’s works and readily identifiable patterns therein a few more Investigative Findings can be put forth. These Findings are more than generalizations but, obviously, do not hold true for every one of Shakespeare’s suicides. ‘In the main’ or ‘on balance’ would be apt qualifiers.
IF – Personally, Shakespeare held a positive view of suicide.
IF – Shakespeare thought suicide noble. He saw suicide as a justifiable end if a person was beset with outrageous fortune or a sea of troubles such as a shattered heart, loss of a child or loss of reputation. Taking one’s own life ensured the suicide would retain their honour after death or reclaim lost honour.
IF – Shakespeare wanted to change how society, the church and the state viewed suicide.
IF – Various prevailing 17th century views Shakespeare wanted to change include: suicides shouldn’t be viewed as sinful or criminal; suicides were not dominated by the mad, mentally unwell or people possessed by the devil; rational people could determine suicide best fit their circumstances; normal people with normal emotions committed suicide.
IF – He also thought suicides shouldn’t be denied mourning, funerals or a proper burial.
IF – Shakespeare thought suicides deserved understanding and sympathy; not derision, shame or condemnation.
Shakespeare’s Suicidal Spectrum
At one extreme end of the spectrumwould be the view Shakespeare thought about killing himself everyday: there is zero proof for that extreme view. At the other extreme end is the possibility Shakespeare never, not once, thought about suicide personally, nor contemplated it and abhorred such a thought and all his numerous, noble, positive literary suicides were writ strictly for fancy and literary creation that had nothing to do with Shakespeare’s personal views about the whole thing. That would be an even harder position to support; an impossibility, really.
Somewhere in the middle is perhaps where Shakespeare hung his hat; the hook from which hangs the following question: if faced with conditions guiding one’s hand toward suicide – being tired of experiencing a sea of troubles, the enjoyment of life gone, being ill, having one’s reputation tarnished with an outrageous family scandal around a birthday or just wanting to go out on your own terms or a combination thereof – would Shakespeare contemplate taking his own life? Another scenario/question, reasonable in the circumstances – given what Shakespeare wrote about suicide and how he portrayed suicide as noble – would be whether resolved at some point before his death to exit on his own terms, nobly, when and how he wanted, maybe on his birthday? If the answer yielded is a possible yes to either of those questions then the next question would be, did he?
When thinking that question through the following facts must be kept in mind:
– how he publicly, positively portrayed suicide in his works as noble;
– harsh 17th century English laws on identifiable suicides;
– financial ruin for a suicide’s family if identified;
– complete lack of public commentary on his death, thus keeping his cause of death unknown to the wider public;
– beset with a possible illness;
– family scandal;
– his looming birthday;
– his funeral, burial and grave oddities;
– he thought it cowardly not to commit suicide if beset with life troubles that called for it; and
– the guy wrote Hamlet.
When keeping those facts – for that’s what they are, all those points are unimpeachable facts except, interestingly, the illness which heretofore has been treated by the scholarsphere as fact – but regardless, when keeping those facts in mind, when viewed together do they prove with 100% certainty Shakespeare committed suicide just like modernity can prove with 100% certainty he wrote every word of Romeo and Juliet or Michelangelo painted every stroke on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Goodness gracious no! O monstrous fault to harbor such a thought! Just a few interesting observations from the factual, 400 year old historical record.
SDRP