To be, or not to be

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For the 1942 film, see To Be or Not to Be (1942 film). For the Mel Brooks remake, see To Be or Not to Be (1983 film)

The phrase "to be, or not to be" comes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Act III, scene I. In it, Hamlet rather impersonally considers the attractions of death ("not to be", which he likens to a sleep) over life ("to be"), whose pain seems unavoidable. Some commentators have read it as a debate on suicide. The soliloquy in full follows:

To be or not to be, that is the question — Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep — No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to — 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep — To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub, 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, For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised 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? who would 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? 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 pitch[1] and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.[2]

Contents 1 Interpretations 2 Use of the speech in later works of fiction and music 3 Trivia 4 Notes 5 References

[edit] Interpretations

The German philosopher Schopenhauer had this to say about the soliloquy:

The essential purport of the world-famous monologue in Hamlet is, in condensed form, that our state is so wretched that complete non-existence would be decidedly preferable to it. Now if suicide actually offered us this, so that the alternative "to be or not to be" lay before us in the full sense of the words, it could be chosen unconditionally as a highly desirable termination ("a consummation devoutly to be wish'd" [Act III, Sc. I.]). There is something in us, however, which tells us that this is not so, that this is not the end of things, that death is not an absolute annihilation.[3]

The philosopher rather glossed over the Christian element in the speech. Yet he has the conflict essentially right: life is so unavoidably wretched that death would be preferable, except for "the dread of something after" that "puzzles the will" and "makes us rather bear those ills we have" than "fly to others that we know not of". But some points do need explaining. First, the lines "whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer/the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" is the to be option, and "to take arms against a sea of troubles/and by opposing end them" is the not to be option. How could taking arms be equivalent to not being? The meaning here is that taking arms against an irresistible sea of troubles is suicidal — our troubles, resisted rather than borne, will destroy us.^[4] Another take on these lines is that the only way to take arms against an ungovernable tide is by the "constructive act of suicide".^[5] But both these contemporary views of that passage recognize that one's own death is the result of taking arms.

Finally, the "conscience" that "does make cowards of us all" is the Christian sense of right and wrong, rather than an odd use of the word to mean "consciousness of the possibly bad unknown that awaits". In other words, the Biblical injunction against suicide^[6] is finally decisive, and the "dread of something after death" the usual fires of Hell.^[7][8]

However, the next five lines (starting with "and thus the native hue of resolution...") do not refer any longer to moral judgements, but are saying that in a similar way anything (not just suicide) can become problematical from too much thinking about it.

[edit] Use of the speech in later works of fiction and music

There have been several films entitled To Be or Not to Be. Other films taking their titles from this speech include Outrageous Fortune, What Dreams May Come and Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country which has a number of references to the works of Shakespeare. As Hamlet has been translated into "original" Klingon, the Klingon translation of the term is taH pagh taHbe'. Additionally, the original title for the classic scifi/horror film Invasion of the Body Snatchers was "Sleep No More".

Mark Twain referenced the material in Chapter 18 of Huckleberry Finn ("To be, or not to be; that is the bare bodkin.")

Shakespearean-trained actor Patrick Stewart portrayed Prince Hamlet in a parody of this soliloquy, on Sesame Street, an American children's television series.

The English composer Ivor Novello wrote a musical called Perchance to Dream.

Songwriter Loudon Wainright III can be quoted as using "shuffle of this mortal coil," in his song "The Suicide Song".

This Mortal Coil is the name of a British goth supergroup, as well as a song by British death metal band Carcass.

Steve Burns has a video where he reads the first few lines of the soliloquy, and upon the line "whether it is nobler," a doll of his Blue's Clues Persona pops into the screen.

Tad Williams quotes the monologue in his novel Otherland. An old hacker is talking about the baddies: "Singh laughed again. 'Afraid? I'm too bloody old to be afraid. My kids don't talk to me, and my wife's dead. So what could they do to me except shove me off the mortal coil?'"

The first part of the soliloquy is quoted in Billy Madison during the drama competition segment of the academic decathlon. Billy wins.

On the show Dirty Jobs in the pig-shaving episode, the "100th Dirtiest Job" special, the host, Mike Rowe, quotes the first few lines of the soliloquy.

[edit] Trivia

"In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten" is a relevant anagram of the first three lines. Hamlet reveals that his self-doubt and inability to avenge his father’s death have led him to the brink of suicide.

In the popular imagination the speaking of this soliloquy is often conflated with the action of Hamlet thoughtfully holding a skull (Yorick's), although the two actions are nowhere near each other in the play.

Translating the key phrase into Danish, Hamlet's language, it becomes at være, eller ikke at være.

[edit] Notes

1. ^ So the 2nd Quarto; the Folio has 'pith', which is a possible reading (Edwards, p. 159, note to line 86)
2. ^ Edwards, 3.1.56-88
3. ^ Schopenhauer, p.324
4. ^ Jenkins (1982), p. 490
5. ^ Edwards, 2003, p. 48
6. ^ e.g. Hebrews 10:30
7. ^ Edwards, p.48
8. ^ Lewis(2002) says that here it means 'nothing more or less than "fear of hell"', p. 207

[edit] References

• Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Philip Edwards, ed., updated edition 2003. (New Cambridge Shakespeare)

• Hamlet. Harold Jenkins, ed., 1982. (The Arden Shakespeare)

• Lewis, C.S., Studies in Words. Cambridge UP, 1960 (reprinted 2002).

• Schopenhauer, Arthur, The World as Will and Representation, Volume I. E.F.J. Payne, tr. Falcon Wing's Press, 1958. Reprinted by Dover, 1969.