Talk:To be, or not to be
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
To be, or not to be is part of WikiProject Shakespeare, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Presentation format
Guys, English is my second language so what I am going to say may sound strange but bear with me. This is not a poem, it is a play; right? So why it is written/presented in this format? It is hard to read and follow in this format! Why not write it as it is spoken in the play? Something like:
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, the 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 the unworthy takes when he himself might his quietus make with a bare bodkin?
I find this format easier to read and understand! It has continuity but needs good punctuations to make it easier to follow. 82.70.40.190
Shakespeare wrote in a form called iambic pentameter, which is a style you'll see throughout any of his poetry or plays. It consists of lines with five (the 'penta' in pentameter) iambic feet, which consist of two syllables. Hence, all of his lines are ten syllables long. It's a specific poetic form of the time and part of his genius, hence all his works are reproduced as such. Wtstar 03:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Shakespeare wrote it in verse so it must be reproduced here in verse, there should be no question about that. Someone with the time to do so, please correct this terrible error.
Sorry, but they're right. It was originally written in the old form. I have just restored it. To attempt to write it otherwise (as it is spoken in the play) is impossible, since every performance is different. Best to stick with how Shakespeare wrote it. Wrad 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pith & Doth
"pith" and moment or "pitch" and moment? I think it's pitch, my version of the play, published by Cambrigde University press states pitch.
I have seen it written both ways, apparently pitch is what it was supposed to be, or at least that's what some discussions of the topic tend to to conclude. A related question though, isn't it supposed to be "doth" and not "does" in the phrase, "conscience doth make cowards of us all"? -- JD
[edit] Anagram
The first three lines are an anagram of "In one of the Bard's best-thought-of tragedies, our insistent hero, Hamlet, queries on two fronts about how life turns rotten".
..Okay, why is this in this article (despite the fact that it's amusing?) Would this be in EB?
- Eric 2 July 2005 22:38 (UTC)
Eric, I think we can be pretty sure of who found the anagram...can't we? But it is still pretty cool...cmdr out
Shouldn't we say that "In one of the Bard's..." is an anagram of the first three lines, rather than vice versa?
I like the anagram. I was also amused by the Klingon translation. Invaluable! Aroundthewayboy 20:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spelling of bourn(e)
I dont know if this edit was correct - I can find links with both spellings, but I'm not an authority on this, so leaving it unchanged ..
[edit] Ophelia
This might be nitpicking, but "Soft you now..." is not part of the soliloquy. Ophelia is there and he is addressing her. I'm not going to cut it, because it'll probably be seen as incomplete, but there ought to be a note that the soliloquy ends at "...lose the name of action."
- Everytime I've heard the soliloguy recited, that part was included. Plus, aren't his parents hiding behind the curtain the whole time to spy on him and Ophelia? Doesn't that make it a monologue? Acetic Acid 08:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
- It's a break in topic of the soliloquy. He could be talking directly to her (Ophelia) or to himself. It all depends on how the actor and director wants to portray it. It's a great part to put in emotion between the two characters. One could make Ophelia more initimately involved with Hamlet's troubles or leave her out completely. I think Kenneth Branagh went with the former, easing her into the end of the soliloquy. --tyger 19:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I find it difficult to view the "Soft ..." line as anything other than a reaction to Ophelia's entrance. I certainly wouldn't view it as a part of the soliloquy. By the way, AA's suggestion that the presence of the Claudius and Polonius means this is not a soliloquy is false, as it's not directed to them. I do feel the last words should not be there. I'm going to take them out, but if someone reverts them, then I'll leave it be.
[edit] Parody
Does not Mark Twain's parody of this soliloquy in Huck Finn deserve mention?
[edit] Suicide?
This soliloquy is not considering suicide; rather, it is considering life or death in the sense of taking revenge on Claudius's life. Hamlet has arguably ruled suicide out in Act I, scene 2, when he says
|
O that this too too sullied flesh would melt, |
he has ruled suicide out as a viable option: God's law does not permit it. He may wish it later in the play; this doesn't mean he considers it a possibility. Any thoughts? A strolling player 05:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is your opinion, but it seems to conflict with what the majority of analysis concludes. The section you quoted seems to me to be saying that if only God didn't condemn suicide, it would make it that much easier for him to choose it. In other words, it's only another coin on the scale of "to be or not to be," and not necessarily the coin that tips the scale.
- I think Hamlet thinks he struggles with suicidal tendencies, but recognizes that he's to "cowardly" to do it, as he as well as admits in the soliloquy. This continues until Ophelia's funeral when he's faced with the harsh reality of death and makes him reassess the value of life, and his life.
- Phemeral 05:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- From what I have read, Hamlet does not come across to me as a suicider either! I don’t know how these analysts came to such conclusion, I have read a couple of them but I am not convinced yet. The way I see it, Hamlet is suffering the huge pain of losing his father and he is considering different ways/options that would end the pain (including doing nothing, taking revenge, and suicide) and he comes to conclusion that doing nothing is not an option, suicide may end his suffering but does not eliminate the guilty.
- Passage from the Final Soliloquy:
- How all occasions do inform against me, and spur my dull revenge! 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 god-like reason to fust in us unused.
- Now, whether it be bestial oblivion, or some craven scruple Of thinking too precisely on the event, a thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom and ever three parts coward, I do not know why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do;' Since I have cause and will and strength and means to do't.
- Let’s not forget that the play intends to make us think about all the options and decide for ourselves which one we would chose. 82.70.40.190
- A friend of mine is of this opinion: "The whole speech equates "not to be" with action: taking up arms, taking vengeance and so on. So if not to be meant to die, then death would have the name of action on its side, when surely that title belongs to life. How did acting get on the side of not being? The fact is that the opposite of not being is not only death. Not for Hamlet. Not to be is also to seem. "Seem, madam? Nay it is. I know not 'seems.'" Denmark is rotten. Everyone ought to be in mourning for Hamlet's father. His mother especially. He, Hamlet, ought to be king. Instead, Denmark is celebrating his mother's marriage to, of all people, his loathsome uncle, who has assumed the throne. And what galls him most is the feigning of grief, the seeming, the wearing of black by people who can't wait to feast at the marriage tables. Hamlet wants no part in such a world. He won't pretend. He refuses to seem. he is. Then he learns of his father's murder. He swears revenge. But from that point on, he enters the world of seeming. His first step is to "put on an antic disposition" - to pretend to be mad. Nect he listens in awe as an actor weeps for Hecuba. Then he actually instructs the playres on how to pretend convincingly. He even writes a script for them himself, to be played that nihgt, a scene he must pretend is anodyne, but that will actually reenact his father's murder. He is falling into the domain of playing, of seeming, Thus for Hamlet, "to be, or not to be" is not "to be, or not to exist". It's "to be, or to seem". To seem is to act, to feign. To be, therefore, is not to act. Hence his paralysis. Hamlet was determined not to seem, and that meant never acting. If he holds out that determination, if he would be, then he cannot act. But if he would take arms and avenge his father he must act - he must choose to seem, rather than to be. All action is acting, all performing is performance. To design means to plan, but also to deceive. To fabricate is to make with skill, but also to deceive. Craft - deception. If we would play a part in the world, we must act, assume roles." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.73.122.82 (talk) 00:52, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
I like that analysis. What I think should also be taken into account are the ethical dimensions to the soliloqy, which are rather subtle, but significant. Two rather puzzling words in the speech are "respect" (in "There's the respect...") and "conscience" (in "Thus conscience makes cowards of us all...), and obsolete definitons aside, it is very easy to take ethical readings from these two words compounded, which bring both the soliloqy and play together in my opinion.
Death approaches as a "dread", an "undiscovered country", a void of which we have no knowledge at all. It is not just simply that we don't know whether we will go to heaven or hell, it is that we don't know if there is a God, if there is what kind of moral injunctions he has enacted etc. It is this that is present in our "conscience" in both the older and contemporary sense of the word. This respect for death.
So if we don't know what moral laws to follow, why is this ethically significant? Because "enterprises of great pitch and moment...[have] their currents turned awry and lose the name of action". We become unsure of ourselves in the face of this absolute ambiguity - unsure of the worth of the projects that we might be pursuing, exactly what justification can be given for their means and aims. The consequences of this are that the respect for death turns into respect for other people. People cannot be treated as means to mortal, human projects in the face of this respect, for the possibility of judgement is always there. You might have been completely wrong, your path may be absolutley the wrong one.
This is reflected all through the play in Hamlet's hesistancy. Even when he has the perfect opportunity to kill his Claudius, this face-to-face encounter and (importantly) the fact that Claudius is praying, inspire in Hamlet the respect that "sicklies" even the noblest and most energetic of plans, and he puts it off.
Wireless99 18:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Which edition?
Which edition/collection of Shakespeare's works is being quoted from here? The actual text quoted from needs to be referenced. Also, I agree with the comment that the soliliquoy ends at "action", or maybe at "soft you now" (which is Hamlet telling himself to be quiet). Carcharoth 01:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Related lines in the play
"To be or not to be..." "...so like the king that was and is the question of these wars"
Hamlet ... And let those that play your clowns speak no more than is set down for them; for there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too; though, in the mean time, some necessary question of the play be then be considered...
What is the necessary question of Hamlet? When the “clowns speak”, it is “then to be considered.”
First Clown
Give me leave. Here lies the water; good: here stands the man; good; if the man go to this water, and drown himself, it is, will he, nill he, he goes,--mark you that; but if the water come to him and drown him, he drowns not himself: argal, he that is not guilty of his own death shortens not his own life.
Second Clown
But is this law?
First Clown
Ay, marry, is't; crowner's quest law.
Hamlet
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?
If Hamlet took arms against the king (a sea of troubles), he would very likely lose his own life in the attempt. Such an action might be considered suicide, which would cost Hamlet his soul. However if he waits for the king to initiate the attack (if the water come to him), then he is not guilty of his own death. The king didn’t try to kill Hamlet until after Hamlet tried to kill the king (but killed Polonius by mistake). In the end, Hamlet killed the king only after the King had indirectly killed Hamlet (via Laertes’ poisoned sword).
Before we leave the clowns, let’s dig a little deeper.
Hamlet
How long hast thou been a grave-maker?
First Clown
Of all the days i' the year, I came to't that day that our last king Hamlet overcame Fortinbras.
Hamlet.
How long is that since?
First Clown
Cannot you tell that? every fool can tell that: it was the very day that young Hamlet was born
Was this then Hamlet's "inheritance" - a graveyard?
Hamlet (standing over a grave)
The very conveyances of his lands will hardly lie in this box; and must the inheritor himself have no more, ha?
To be or not to be -- what? That is the question. After Horatio had explained that the impending war was caused by a duel over land fought by Hamlet's father, whose ghost they had just seen, Bernardo replied:
I think it be no other but e'en so:
Well may it sort that this portentous figure
Comes armed through our watch; so like the king
That was and is the question of these wars.
To be or not to be... so like the king that was and is the question of these wars - that is Hamlet’s dilemma. Ray Eston Smith Jr 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] danish translation
could we get at least two people fluent in Danish check this up? I can't speak a word, but this sure could be embarrassing, if the translation did not match up.-- ExpImptalkcon 01:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-- I'm fluent in Danish and willing to help. Couldn't find the translation though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janus Agerbo (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summary
I was bold and changed [1] the article quite a bit. I admit I have gotten carried away in the Interpretations part (I had initially intended to just improve the style), but hopefully not enough to set off anyone's BS detector. ;) All the additions are based on something I've read, not the original research. I'll try to provide sources later.
I also shortened the References (formerly: "Uses") in Popular Culture part, only leaving those that refer to the monologue in the name (of the movie, band, etc.) itself. For the arguably most recognized passage from the English literature, listing all instances when a character in a novel or a verse of the song quotes/paraphrases it, is just silly.
Other changes I made should be self-explanatory. Carecrow 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
They need cleanup. For example:
In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World(1932), the protagonist, John is faced with the decision of suicide...
That is not a Shakespeare reference. Most of them legitimately are, but the list is nearing the size of the rest of the article, which is a little overboard. --207.171.180.101 23:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Most definitely it is not (Huxley's reference). I'm taking it off. --Jbaio 17:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comma
The title shouldn't have a comma, should it? — thesublime514 • talk • 23:38, July 8, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Debatable reference
Additionally, the original title for the classic sci-fi/horror film Invasion of the Body Snatchers was "Sleep No More."
Surely this is more likely to be a reference to Macbeth? In Hamlet's soliloquy, the words "sleep no more" occur consecutively but with a semicolon separating them; they're not part of one phrase. 91.105.26.124 02:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comma again
The title shouldn't have a comma, shouldn't it not? I mean, it's not like there's a comma in the script or anything, or like, it's accepted literary practice to have a comma...I think most people would write it without a comma. VolatileChemical (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Punctuation and spelling
Since two people have complained about the title having a comma, should we perhaps choose a different edition for the text of the soliloquy? Most editions have the comma.
This brings up a deeper question about spelling and punctuation in general. From what I've been able to tell, most editors feel obliged to use the "traditional" text (whatever that is -- multivolume works have been written about problems with the text of Hamlet!) but they feel free to use whatever spelling and punctuation they like! For example, Project Gutenberg's edition looks like this:
To be, or not to be, that is the Question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the minde to suffer
The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,
Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to dye, to sleepe
No more; and by a sleepe, to say we end
The Heart-ake, and the thousand Naturall shockes
That Flesh is heyre too? 'Tis a consummation
Deuoutly to be wish'd. To dye to sleepe,
To sleepe, perchance to Dreame; I, there's the rub,
For in that sleepe of death, what dreames may come,
When we haue shuffel'd off this mortall coile,
Must giue vs pawse. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would beare the Whips and Scornes of time,
The Oppressors wrong, the poore mans Contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd Loue, the Lawes delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurnes
That patient merit of the vnworthy takes,
When he himselfe might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardles beare
To grunt and sweat vnder a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The vndiscouered Countrey, from whose Borne
No Traueller returnes, Puzels the will,
And makes vs rather beare those illes we haue,
Then flye to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of vs all,
And thus the Natiue hew of Resolution
Is sicklied o're, with the pale cast of Thought,
And enterprizes of great pith and moment,
With this regard their Currants turne away,
And loose the name of Action.
Whereas The Riverside Shakespeare has:
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 despis'd 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 undiscover'd 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 and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.
So--how do we decide which is best? Which is most authoritative?
In any case, I think the comma should remain in the title of the article, since most editions of the text keep it.
Webbbbbbber (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Changing edition
Since there have been multiple changes made to the text as quoted from Edwards, and I do not have access to that text, I would like to change the text to that offered by Project Gutenberg, since all of their stuff is free and in the PD. The latest version looks pretty authoritative, too. Webbbbbbber (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
