Read the Hamlet “To be or not to be” soliloquy below with modern English translation & analysis:

“To Be Or Not To Be”: Spoken by Hamlet, Act 3 Scene 1

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? 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 pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.–Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember’d.

“To Be Or Not To Be” Soliloquy Translation:

The question for him was whether to continue to exist or not – whether it was more noble to suffer the slings and arrows of an unbearable situation, or to declare war on the sea of troubles that afflict one, and by opposing them, end them. To die. He pondered the prospect. To sleep – as simple as that. And with that sleep we end the heartaches and the thousand natural miseries that human beings have to endure. It’s an end that we would all ardently hope for. To die. To sleep. To sleep. Perhaps to dream. Yes, that was the problem, because in that sleep of death the dreams we might have when we have shed this mortal body must make us pause. That’s the consideration that creates the calamity of such a long life. Because, who would tolerate the whips and scorns of time; the tyrant’s offences against us; the contempt of proud men; the pain of rejected love; the insolence of officious authority; and the advantage that the worst people take of the best, when one could just release oneself with a naked blade? Who would carry this load, sweating and grunting under the burden of a weary life if it weren’t for the dread of the after life – that unexplored country from whose border no traveler returns? That’s the thing that confounds us and makes us put up with those evils that we know rather than hurry to others that we don’t know about. So thinking about it makes cowards of us all, and it follows that the first impulse to end our life is obscured by reflecting on it. And great and important plans are diluted to the point where we don’t do anything.

What do you think of the modern translation of Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy above? Let us know by leaving a comment below!
See other Hamlet soliloquies >>

Read Hamlet in modern English >>

79 replies
« Older CommentsNewer Comments »
  1. sy
    sy says:

    Actually, it can be argued by two views. Yes, Hamlet could be contemplating suicide, but also whether to take action for his father’s murder. It depends on how you really view and understand Hamlet. During the play, he gives no sign of depression, in which if he did have, would not try avenge his father’s death, or set up the play for Claudius and his mother. If he was truly depressed, he would not do any of that, he would not care about anything. In the play, it does not suggest suicide. It can be argued, but I’m just throwing another opinion out there because it depends on how you configure his soliloquy.

    Reply
    • Chris
      Chris says:

      Sy, your logic is false due to your assumption that suicide necessarily comes from a state of depression; this is a false premise. For contemplative, philosophically minded people living is necessarily a choice which must be made again and again; living (‘to be’) is not a default position. Depression is a psychological disorder which implies a fundamental imbalance in the individual which is disconnected from reality; however, contemplating taking one’s life in the wake of a personal tragedy is quite normal for a thinker, for there is no mental taboo that circumvents such areas. Furthermore we belong to an era wherein action is lauded and reflection is undervalued; all emphasis is placed on ‘hard sciences’ and ‘facts’, and, recognition is given to neither the genesis of such fields of knowledge, nor, to the nature of human knowledge. All science is born from philosophy; each field of knowledge breaks away from its parent when it becomes mature. The context and genesis, or ‘nature of human knowledge’ is that it is borne of human perception, which in turn comes from our senses. The information we receive from our eyes, for example, is filtered through our brains prior to seeing, thus we literally modify reality according to our individual predilections and fears; after which we further individualize our perception further by processing this information with deductive and inductive inferences, or, we jump to familiar conclusions (conditioned by society, family etc.). Our world-view changes what we perceive and decides how we may respond to our perception. Your interpretation, completely modifies the meaning of this text and illustrates how our world-view molds our everyday perceptions.
      From a Christian perspective, these fundamental questions have been answered; this necessitates total acceptance of the validity of the Bible and the faithfulness of the God depicted therein; therefore asking rather, ‘God, how may I best serve you?’, ‘what is Your will?’ This is incredibly difficult as the Christian’s yardstick is a bronze-age text from a very different culture from our own with a totally different set of assumptions. Shakespeare is far easier to understand in context, though not without difficulty if done thoroughly.
      Shakespeare’s language in this soliloquy is limpid and can in no way be taken to be a reflection of which action to take regarding his father’s murder; he is simply questioning the point of it all, the absurdity, the unbearable lightness of being. Therefore he must decide ‘to be, or, not to be’ before he decides whether or not he should take action.
      I have thought exactly the same thoughts myself (less beautifully expressed) on many occasions since the time I started to think for myself and question the myriad assumptions our factual conclusions are based upon. This soliloquy truly is a beautiful rendition of fundamental metaphysical questions that the flesh is heir to; we are, after all, human beings and not human doings.

      Reply
    • hlo
      hlo says:

      In my opinion existential depression or existential crisis cannot considered as depression. The person going through existential crises will question the meaning, the purpose and the value of life however he/she does not necessarily have to show major symptoms of depression. There was this guy in Turkey called Mehmet Pişkin who committed suicide because he was in a point in his life where he realized that life had no meaning and everything he did was meaningless. He recorded a video right before he killed himself and said that he wasn’t in a depression what so ever and wanted to end his life because he couldn’t find joy in living. Therefore I believe Hamlet is going through an existential crises and is considering suicide.

      Reply
  2. Mr. Foutch
    Mr. Foutch says:

    Nicely done. Just what I need to help w/this weighty piece of lit. I’ve an MA in English Literature. I couldn’t/wouldn’t have abbreciated the speech any other way. Thanks.

    Reply
  3. Andrew
    Andrew says:

    Strikes me the language of Shakespeare is pretty permanent.Hamlet’s main speech in its original form/s remains probably the most powerful and eloquent in the English language and certainly not hard to understand, especially when you start to hear its music. .Some language, like good grammar and speliing, which boosts clarity and understanding is indeed permanent.

    Reply
  4. Gerald Sherman
    Gerald Sherman says:

    I can perhaps see the desirability of translating some of Shakespeare into modern English. Words change meanings over time, and things which may have made sense a few centuries ago no longer do. Look at the King James translation of the Bible, and compare it with a version that uses modern English.
    At the same time, I find some modern grammatical errors appalling. People use “it’s” as the possessive form of “it”. The correct spelling here is “its” – “it’s” is a contraction of “it is”. Maybe I notice some of these things because I am actually from England, although I have spent most of my life in Canada. In addition, I took classical Latin at university, and tend to take a somewhat analytical view, from a language viewpoint, of anything written. Incidentally, I am on the wrong side of 70 years old, but this doesn’t mean my brain has turned into a fossil or that my memory is “absent without leave”, to use the military expression.

    Reply
  5. Samantha
    Samantha says:

    I believe that even though people today may not know how to read Shakespeare, at least they care enough to try and understand what it is he was trying to convey. I know that he is now infamous for his beautiful language. The message is most important.

    Reply
  6. Ipomoe
    Ipomoe says:

    It is written in English, yes. But clearly not in the easiest to understand for anyone who wasn’t born in an English-speaking country. I’m French, and reading the appalling translations of Shakespeare I was given at school, I decided to read only the original text. And frankly, I thank whoever “translated” this, because if it isn’t a replacement to the subtleties in Shakespeare’s words, it’s a nice way to help me to understand the idea, and at the same time to improve my English.

    PS : Apart from that, I completely agree with donna, the level of students is really low these days, and I fear it isn’t only in America.

    Reply
  7. Meg
    Meg says:

    Be happy that you study English in America or wherever. Here in India we can spot errors in our english text books. Spellings, grammar and the teachers teaching us. Haha.

    Reply
  8. donna
    donna says:

    I am completely failing to understand why there are so many requests for “translations” of Shakespeare’s work when it is so very clearly already written in English.

    Tis a truly sad comment on the education system in America at today. I see comments on countless websites and/or blogs and read assignments written by college students in the local American Sign Language interpreter program that would seem to indicate that the average American college student cannot discern the differences between “there,”: “their,” or “they’re.” “Your” and “you’re” as well as “lose” and “loose,” “allowed” and “aloud,” and “affect” versus “effect” all seem to be completely lost to students these days. I would never have been allowed out of my public elementary school without knowing these things, and, at the risk of having sounded like my own parents, it really wasn’t all that long ago. I have a friend whose (not who’s) thirteen year old daughter goes to a private school in northern Virginia that costs more per year than many of Virginia’s state colleges and universities. Even as she prepares to enter high school, the poor kid is very nearly functionally illiterate. That said, she is completely comfortable composing a Facebook page where she can show the world just how wonderfully her expensive private school education has prepared her thus far.

    To quote the aforementioned thirteen year old, “I’m just sayin’ …”

    Reply
    • Lindie J
      Lindie J says:

      Well I’M just saying that Shakespeare’s work is pretty hard to understand not because we are illiterate or stupid as you are suggesting. However, because it is apparent that you are living under a rock, I feel the urge to politely point out to you that we no longer live in a time period where we speak in inverse sentence structures, iambic pentameter or basically, Shakespearean language.

      PS: “I’m just sayin’ ”
      PPS: You obviously do not appreciate the wonders of Facebook, so screw you.

      Reply
      • Ophelia
        Ophelia says:

        As a history major, I would like to point out that there was never a time period during which people spoke regularly in iambic pentameter.

        Reply
    • Kathleen
      Kathleen says:

      I totally agree. My step-granddaughter starred in The Merchant of Venice in Canada and spoke the King’s English and understood every word. She was in the 4th (fourth, not forth) grade! So much for our education system here. People today lack so much because they stay on social media so much of the time.

      Reply
    • Sarah
      Sarah says:

      Why, may I ask, are you even on this webpage if you do not want to read the translation? Have you nothing better to do than to search for webpages on which you may rant about the supposed lack of intelligence and stupidity about the young generation?

      Reply
      • Scott
        Scott says:

        The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Other Comments talk about ignorance and lack of effort. No one is attacking people about stupidity or lack intelligence. It is these subtleties that allow us to appreciate (in my case, struggle through) Shakespeare.

        Reply
    • Ben
      Ben says:

      There can also be finer points that are lost if not familiar with the language and customs of 400+ years ago. For example, even more recently, the founding fathers of the United states talked about all men being free and equal, the not actually talking about all men or any women.

      Reply
    • asshole
      asshole says:

      You’re a sloppy sagging piece of foreskin. Just because you took pride in learning traditional English dialogue doesn’t mean every kid in America has to be the same. Kids nowadays are more exposed to media and what not and it’s changing language, you don’t have to add you’re unappreciated opinion, even though it may be accurate. Learn the fact that there is no language that is permanent.

      Reply
      • Oli
        Oli says:

        Wow. Shakespeare would be proud and I’m sure Oscar Wilde applauded. Why do all internet forums have to devolve into insult and mindless penis insults?

        To those who came here and are now asking ‘why do we need a translation?’ I say this…… Why are you here? If you think a translation is unnecessary, then the only reason you clicked a link for a translation must be to offend those who want one. So it’s a little rich of you to sit and judge people’s transliteration skills when you’re here for a purpose far shallower and base than the others.

        On to the transliteration, I thought it was a fair assessment of the text. It can be shortened much further to ‘ I’m thinking of killing myself as life is full of cruelties but I won’t because I don’t know what will happen after and I’m scared. Surely that’s the reason any of us live. Shh, the mistress is coming and I’m talking to myself’. but I think the much abbreviated version loses the impact a ‘bit’.

        Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>