By Dr Oliver Tearle (Loughborough University)
‘To be, or not to be, that is the question’: perhaps one of the most famous lines in all of English literature, but arguably also one of the most mysterious – and one of the most misread. Hamlet’s soliloquy from William Shakespeare’s play is rightly celebrated for being a meditation on the nature of life and death, but some interpretations of the soliloquy serve to reduce the lines to a more simplistic meaning. So what does ‘To be or not to be’ really mean?
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
Virtually everyone knows the line, ‘To be, or not to be: that is the question’. Whether we hear Laurence Olivier reciting them, or erroneously picture some other great Shakespearean actor pronouncing these words while holding a skull (which actually belongs in the later gravedigger scene), ‘To be or not to be’ is one of the most famous six-line phrases from all of English literature.
But interestingly, in the first printing of Hamlet, the lines were quite different (see the image from the Quarto, below right): ‘To be, or not to be: that is the question’ was instead ‘To be, or not to be, I there’s the point’ (this version may have been actors or audience-members misremembering the lines from the play and trying to reconstruct them from memory).
Yet the precise meaning of these words, and the lines that follow, is often analysed in a way that not only reduces the ambiguity of the lines to a simple and straightforward narrative (Hamlet is pondering whether to kill himself or not) but also risks losing sight of the broader context in which they appear, namely the play Hamlet viewed as a whole.
For if there is one thing that marks Hamlet (and the character, Hamlet), it is his supposed vacillation, his indecision, his delaying: and his dilatoriness centres on his failure to take revenge on his uncle, Claudius, for the murder of his father, Old Hamlet.
What makes ‘To be or not to be’ such a cryptic utterance is that the lines telegraph, and even actively elide, the full thought which Hamlet is mulling over. Should ‘To be or not to be’ be silently completed by us as ‘To be alive or not to be alive’ (the ‘suicide’ interpretation), or as ‘To be an avenger or not to be an avenger’ (bringing in the revenge plot of the play)?
The problem is that the lines which follow, far from being specifically about the pros and cons of killing oneself, can actually be used to support either interpretation.
To ‘suffer / The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, / Or to take arms against a sea of troubles / And by opposing end them’ sounds like somebody wondering whether to carry on living or to end it all, but these lines might just as easily refer to Hamlet’s dilemma over whether to accept the challenge mounted by the Ghost (avenge his murdered father) or to stand by and passively let things play out as ‘fortune’ decrees.
The lines that follow:
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
Seem to be more specifically focused on the suicide question, but even here there is some ambiguity. Given that the Ghost of his dead father is firmly on young Hamlet’s mind, he is also meditating here on what happens when we die (not just on what might happen when he dies).
The Ghost appears to call into question that ‘to die’ is ‘to sleep’, since Old Hamlet has not been allowed to rest; he is a ‘traveller’ who has returned from that ‘undiscovered country’ beyond the grave.
Hamlet’s delaying tactics are themselves often misinterpreted. Is it fair to say that Hamlet delays? Yes. Is it fair to say that he delays because he is indecisive? That’s less certain. He certainly gives us that impression, and torments himself for being not ‘man’ enough to avenge his father.
But Hamlet’s ‘failure’ to act immediately is actually downright sensible, since he wants to be sure that the Ghost which he spoke to, which assumed the form of his father, actually was his father and spoke truth to him, rather than being some mischievous demon sent to goad him to murder an innocent man. This is why he puts on the ‘play within a play’ (actually called The Murder of Gonzago, but which Hamlet wittily renames The Mousetrap): to try to collect evidence of Claudius’ guilt.
Form
As this is a soliloquy from a Shakespeare play, ‘To be or not to be’ is in iambic pentameter – specifically, unrhymed iambic pentameter, or blank verse. But there are a number of variations. Should we stress ‘that’ or ‘is’ in ‘that is the question’? Although ‘that is the question’ may be more common an interpretation, ‘that is the question’ is viable too.
For our money, the best interpretation of Shakespeare’s lines was by the great actor Paul Scofield; you can hear him reciting ‘To be or not to be’ here. For more about the play, see our analysis of Hamlet and our study of the character of Hamlet. You might also find our analysis of another of Hamlet’s soliloquies, ‘O, that this too too solid flesh would melt’, of interest.
About Hamlet
The role of Hamlet is one of the most intellectually and emotionally demanding for an actor: as Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor mention in their detailed introduction to Hamlet: Revised Edition (The Arden Shakespeare Third Series)
But despite – or, perhaps, because of – this emotional intensity and complexity, actors down the ages have been keen to put their own stamp on the role, including David Garrick (who had a special wig that made Hamlet’s hair stand on end when the ghost of his father appeared), Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Mel Gibson, Sarah Bernhardt (one of many women to portray the Prince of Denmark), Ethan Hawke, Keanu Reeves, Kenneth Branagh, Maxine Peake, and even John Wilkes Booth, the man who assassinated Abraham Lincoln.
This post earned a Bean Pat as blog pick of the day. Check it out at https://patbean.net
In support of the revenge motive, Hamlet faces off against a powerful and popular king, albeit a usurper, who’s dangerous and also loved by his mother whose own motives are suspect. Claudius was more the politician/ruler and Hamlet the Renaissance scholar, one strong in arms, the other whose demise allowed Fortinbras (“strong in arms”) to invade and take over Denmark at the end. While Claudius was on the throne, Hamlet struggled to overthrow him until he was sure of his guilt. Part of the play’s genius is Claudius’ own soul-searching guilt that had Hamlet known, would have led to sooner action on the part of the prince. Throughout, as audience we are brought into the many deliberations knowing more than the characters inside the play know and wondering who we are as a result of Hamlet discovering himself. The opening words of the play tell it all: Who’s there?
I think you have to work hard to interpret this as not contemplating his fear of death and what lies beyond. That’s not to say the issue of revenge isn’t there – of course it is, Hamlet wouldn’t be contemplating death if not for the foul deed the ghost has laid before him!
As far as the stress on ‘that’ or ‘is’, I think this link should solve this… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEs8rK5Cqt8
Thanks, Ken. I absolutely agree that Hamlet is contemplating death here, but as you say, it’s his *fear* of death – and what awaits him afterwards – that lurks behind his words. If he chooses to ‘avenge’ his father and kill Claudius, and he’s been tricked by the Ghost and Claudius was innocent, hell awaits him. The fact that he refers to the afterlife as the ‘undiscover’d country, from whose bourn / No traveller returns’ when he’s recently been visited by a traveller who has returned (i.e. his father), suggests that he’s still doubting the truth of the Ghost. But this is perhaps partly why the lines have attained the status they have: they resist any narrowly reductive take that sees this as exclusively a ‘suicide speech’ (or similar). I may need to go and reread the play now…
I’ve just been working with the play with A level students recently so it is very fresh in my mind. I’ve grown to love the speech when, perhaps, I’ve tended to let ‘familiarity breed contempt’ in the past. It’s a superb rendering of anguish over a ‘do I, don’t I?’ situation which, of course, has eternal consequences. The Ghost also reveals there’s doubt over the ‘perchance to dream’ that death should be – what if Hamlet is to die and roam the Earth in torment like his father?! What would we choose, I wonder…
As an aside, and fearing ruining what little reputation I might have(!) – for my money the best Hamlet of all is Mel Gibson. I genuinely rate him over all the so-called ‘serious’ Shakespearean actors (yes, even over Olivier) and recommend his film version to all students who want a believable rather than stylised rendition of the character.
Reblogged this on Manolis.
Hamlet tells us what the speech is about in lines 2-5, where he explains what he means by “To be or not to be”. He means that there are two options for him: these options are: in lines 2-3, to put up with random unpleasantness from Claudius and others; in lines 4-5, to actually do something, viz. to take up arms, to fight, and possibly, within the context of the plot, to kill Claudius. As a result of killing Claudius, Hamlet might well die himself.
The natural meaning of “take arms against a sea of troubles” etc is to battle some exterior force; to grab weapons to do battle against the sea which is out there, not here, and certainly not inside us. Or, if the sea were metaphorically inside him, and were an interior enemy, he would need to make that clear, which he does not do. The meaning remains, imho, the clear and patent one, rather than a reference to suicide.
So the dilemma is to put up, or to take action; and this is set out clearly at the start. However, as you say, there is some shadow of suicide in the words of the first line too; and this shadow comes to life when the “bare bodkin” is mentioned later.
The speech is about putting up (and choosing life), or not putting up (and maybe choosing death), and the implications of this choice in the next world and this one.
Hovering above the text (or lurking beneath it) is the idea that suicide could be an option, too.
It’s always interesting to hear a new perspective on this soliloquy.