‘To be or not to be, that is the question’ is the most famous soliloquy in the works of Shakespeare – quite possibly the most famous soliloquy in literature. Read Hamlet’s famous soliloquy below with a modern translation and full explanation of the meaning of ‘To be or not to be’. We’ve also pulled together a bunch of commonly asked questions about Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, and have a couple of top performances of the soliloquy to watch.
Jump to section: Full soliloquy | Analysis | Performances | FAQs | Final read
Let’s start with a read-through of Shakespeare’s original lines:
Hamlet’s ‘To Be Or Not To Be’ Speech, 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.
Hamlet ‘To Be Or Not To Be’ Analysis
TL:DR
Hamlet is thinking about life and death. It is the great question that Hamlet is asking about human existence in general and his own existence in particular – a reflection on whether it’s better to be alive or to be dead.
The in-depth version
The first six words of the soliloquy establish a balance. There is a direct opposition – to be, or not to be. Hamlet is thinking about life and death and pondering a state of being versus a state of not being – being alive and being dead.
The balance continues with a consideration of the way one deals with life and death. Life is a lack of power: the living are at the mercy of the blows of outrageous fortune. The only action one can take against the things he lists among those blows is to end one’s life. That’s the only way of opposing them. The ‘sleep of death’ is therefore empowering: killing oneself is a way of taking action, taking up arms, opposing and defeating the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Living is a passive state; dying is an active state. But in order to reach the condition of death one has to take action in life – charge fully armed against Fortune – so the whole proposition is circular and hopeless because one does not really have the power of action in life.
Death is something desirable – devoutly to be wished, a consummation – a perfect closure. It’s nothing more than a sleep. But there’s a catch, which Hamlet calls a rub. A ‘rub’ is a bowls term meaning an obstacle on the bowls lawn that diverts the bowl, so the fear of the life hereafter is the obstacle that makes us pause and perhaps change the direction of our thinking. We don’t control our dreams so what dreams may come in that sleep in which we have shuffled off all the fuss and bother of life? He uses the term ‘mortal coil,’ which is an Elizabethan word for a big fuss, such as there may be in the preparations for a party or a wedding – a lot of things going on and a lot of rushing about. With that thought, Hamlet stops to reconsider. What will happen when we have discarded all the hustle and bustle of life? The problem with the proposition is that the sleep of death is unknown and could be worse than life.
And now Hamlet reflects on a final end. A ‘quietus’ is a legal word meaning a final definitive end to an argument. He opposes this Latin word against the Celtic ‘sweating’ and ‘grunting’ of a living person as an Arab beneath an overwhelmingly heavy load – a fardel, the load carried by a camel. Who would bear that when he could just draw a line under life with something as simple as a knitting needle – a bodkin? It’s quite a big thought and it’s fascinating that this enormous act – drawing a line under life – can be done with something as simple as a knitting needle. And how easy that seems.
Hamlet now lets his imagination wander on the subject of the voyages of discovery and the exploratory expeditions. Dying is like crossing the border between known and unknown geography. One is likely to be lost in that unmapped place, from which one would never return. The implication is that there may be unimagined horrors in that land.
Hamlet now seems to make a decision. He makes the profound judgment that ‘conscience does make cowards of us all,’ This sentence is probably the most important one in the soliloquy. There is a religious dimension to it as it is a sin to take one’s life. So with that added dimension, the fear of the unknown after death is intensified.
But there is more to it than that. It is not just about killing himself but also about the mission he is on – to avenge his father’s death by killing his father’s murderer. Throughout the action of the play, he makes excuses for not killing him and turns away when he has the chance. ‘Conscience does make cowards of us all.’ Convention demands that he kill Claudius but murder is a sin and that conflict is the core of the play.
At the end of the soliloquy, he pulls himself out of this reflective mode by deciding that too much thinking about it is the thing that will prevent the action he has to rise to.
This is not entirely a moment of possible suicide. It’s not that he’s contemplating suicide as much as reflecting on life, and we find that theme all through the text. In this soliloquy, life is burdensome and devoid of power. In another, it’s ‘weary, stale, flat and unprofitable,’ like a garden overrun with weeds. In this soliloquy, Hamlet gives a list of all the things that annoy him about life: 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. But there’s a sense of agonized frustration in this soliloquy that however bad life is we’re prevented from doing anything about it by fear of the unknown.
Watch Two Theatre Greats Recite Hamlet’s Soliloquy
David Tenant as Hamlet in the RSC’s 2009 Hamlet production:
We couldn’t resist but share Patrick Stewart’s comedy take on the soliloquy for Sesame Street!
Commonly Asked Questions About ‘To Be Or Not To Be’
Why is Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’ speech so famous?
This is partly because the opening words are so interesting, memorable and intriguing, but also because Shakespeare ranges around several cultures and practices to borrow the language for his images. Just look at how many now-famous phrases are used in the speech – ‘take arms’, ‘what dreams may come’, ‘sea of troubles’, ‘to sleep perchance to dream’. ‘sleep of death’, ‘whether tis nobler’, ‘flesh is heir’, ‘must give us pause’, ‘mortal coil’, ‘suffer the slings and arrows’, outrageous fortune’, ‘the insolence of office’… the list goes on and on.
Add to this the fact that Shakespeare is dealing with profound concepts, putting complex philosophical ideas into the mouth of a character on a stage, and communicating with an audience with a wide range of educational levels, and you have a selection of reasons as to why this soliloquy is as famous as it is. Just look at how many now phrases
How long is ‘To be or not to be’?
The ‘To be or not to be’ soliloquy is 33 lines long, and consists of 262 words. Hamlet, the play in which ‘to be or not to be’ occurs is Shakespeare’s longest play with 4,042 lines. It takes four hours to perform Hamlet on the stage, with the ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy taking anywhere from two to four minutes.
Why is ‘To be or not to be’ so important?
‘To be or not to be’ is not important in itself but it has gained tremendous significance in that it is perhaps the most famous phrase in all the words of the playwright considered to be the greatest writer in the English language. It is also significant in the play, Hamlet, itself in that it goes directly to the heart of the play’s meaning.
Why does Hamlet say ‘To be or not to be’?
To be or not to be’ is a soliloquy of Hamlet’s – meaning that although he is speaking aloud to the audience none of the other characters can hear him. Soliloquies were a convention of Elizabethan plays where characters spoke their thoughts to the audience. Hamlet says ‘To be or not to be’ because he is questioning the value of life and asking himself whether it’s worthwhile hanging in there. He is extremely depressed at this point and fed up with everything in the world around him, and he is contemplating putting an end to himself.
Is ‘To be or not to be’ a metaphor?
The line ‘To be or not to be’ is very straightforward and direct, and has no metaphorical aspect at all. It’s a simple statement made up of five two-letter words and one of three – it’s so simple that a child in the early stages of learning to read can read it. Together with the sentence that follows it – ‘that is the question – it is a simple question about human existence. The rest of the soliloquy goes on to use a number of metaphors.
What is Shakespeare saying in ‘To be or not to be’?
In the ‘To be or not be to’ soliloquy Shakespeare has his Hamlet character speak theses famous lines. Hamlet is wondering whether he should continue to be, meaning to exist or remain alive, or to not exist – in other words, commit suicide. His thoughts about that develop in the rest of the soliloquy.
Why is ‘To be or not to be’ so memorable?
Ask people to quote a line of Shakespeare and more often than not it’s ‘To be or not to be’ that’s mentioned. So just what is it that makes this line of Shakespeare’s so memorable?
The line is what is known as a chiasmus because of its balance and structure, and that’s what makes it memorable. Look at this chiasmus from John F Kennedy: ‘Do not ask what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.’ Far more complex than Shakespeare’s line but even so, having heard it one could never forget it. The first and second halves mirror each other, the second being an inversion of the first. Winston Churchill’s speeches are full of chiasma. Even when he is joking they flow: ‘All babies look like me, but then I look like all babies.’
Chiasma are always short and snappy and say a lot in their repetition of words and their balance. And so it is with Hamlet’s speech that starts ‘to be or not to be’, arguably Shakespeare’s most memorable line – in the collective conscience centuries after the words were written and performed.
Look at the balance of the line. It has only four words: ‘to,’ ‘be,’ ‘or’ and ‘not.’ The fact is that the language is as simple as language can get but the ideas are extremely profound. ‘To take arms against a sea of troubles,’ for example, and ‘To die, to sleep, no more, but in that sleep of death what dreams may come,’ every word but one monosyllabic, go right to the heart of human existence and the deepest dilemmas of life.
Let’s try reading it again…
If you’re still with us, you should now have a pretty good understanding of the true meaning behind the words of Hamlet’s ‘To be or not to be’ speech. You may have also watched two fantastic actors speak the immortal words, so should have a much clearer understanding of what messages the soliloquy is trying to convey.
With all of this in mind, why not try reading the words aloud to yourself one more time:
And that’s all for this take on Hamlet’s immortal lines. Did this page help you? Any information we’re missing that would be useful? Please do let us know in the comments section below!
Looking to pay someone who can help with your paper on any Hamlet topic?
AffordablePapers will write your essay for you, cheap with fast delivery.
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’ …”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
You’ve knowingly or perhaps unknowingly demonstrated the evolution of language with that quote Scott, and argued, more succinctly than anyone, the case for a modern rendering of Shakespeare:
‘Protest’ in the Shakespearean usage means ‘to promise’ or ‘declare’. Gertrude was saying the Queen in The Mousetrap was overdoing it with her vow to the king. A reader new to the play, regardless of their level of education or where they come from, Donna, would understand the word to literally mean protest, but of course the lady protests nothing; she promises much.
Help with Shakespeare is never a bad thing. He deliberately seizes on double meanings with many words for poetic and mischievous purposes. But time was beyond his genius, and has made some extracts of Shakespeare a minefield of language, where he did not intend it to be.
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.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thought your translation was well done and simplified the language enough to see the meaning more clearly. Good job!
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.
Translation? What for? It is already in English ….
it is in middle english
Early Modern English, actually.
Yahoo! Another brilliant mind correcting the popular misunderstanding. I salute thee!
Jim, you are correct — it would have been more precise to refer to this as a transliteration and not a translation.
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.
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.
That was absolutely brilliant! You have indeed summed up what this means to me. Thank you for putting it in such an excellent light.
Nice job, Chris. Thoughtful, very thoughtful. And useful as well.
I never thought that Hamlet was depressed. But he was presented with a seemingly insoluble situation since the deck was so stacked against him. As he was so completely blocked from doing the honorable thing, he was having this internal discussion about what was the nobler course. I think he would have preferred “hitting the light switch” – but for his fear that wouldn’t have done the trick. So he chose toughing it out, but not because it was the nobler course – he simply couldn’t accept the consequences of the uncertainty of the alternative.
I recite this periodically – it never ceases to bring me to tears.
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.