[BR= /I60.62 /J22.20 /K0.0 ] The Folio of 1623 (or First Folio) is the standard textual basis for most of Shakespeare's plays. However, the later Quartos (Second, Third, and Fourth) contain excellent versions of Hamlet, and many editors have combined these Quartos with the First (and later) Folios to derive a published edition of the play. The text given here of "To be, or not to be" is from the First Folio; the few significant differences from the later Quartos are noted in the cross- references. This famous speech also exists in the First Quarto in a much different form (see Quarto Text [quarto] for comparison.) (Press F4 to return to previous view)  ÄÄ First Folio version To be, or not to be ÄÄ 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 ÄÄ No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heartache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to: 'Tis a consummation Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep; To sleep, perchance to dream ÄÄ Aye, there's the rub, (Rub[?glossary]) For in that sleep of death what dreams may come, When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, (Coil[?glossary]) Must give us pause. There's the respect (Respect[?glossary]) That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the poor man's contumely, (Contumely[?glossary]) The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay, (Disprized[?glossary]) The insolence of office, and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes When he himself might his quietus make (Quietus[?glossary]) With a bare bodkin? Who would these fardels bear, (Bodkin[?glossary]) To grunt and sweat under a weary life, (Fardels[?glossary]) But that the dread of something after death ÄÄ The undiscovered country from whose bourne (Bourne[?glossary]) No traveler returns ÄÄ 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, (Thought[?glossary]) And enterprises of great pith and moment (Pith[?glossary]) With this regard their currents turn away (Moment[?glossary]) And lose the name of action. (Notes are available on the provenance of this transcription.) (Press F4 to return to previous view)  It's intriguing how different this monologue is in its first recorded version, the Quarto of 1603. (See Quarto Text [quarto].) For example, "that is the question" is, in the Quarto, "aye, there's the point." The sense of the speech is there, and many of the words and phrases, but there the resemblance ends. (See Transcription [quarto] for a brief discussion of the First Quarto as a true copy of Shakespeare's play.) (Press F4 to return to previous view)  It's intriguing how often writers grab a phrase from Shakespeare as the title of a popular work ÄÄ such as Forsythe's "The Dogs of War," Steinbeck's "The Winter of Our Discontent," or even the Bette Midler/Shelley Long film "Outrageous Fortune." In an odd way, such borrowing contributes to keeping Shakespeare alive even for those who've never read or seen one of his plays. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Hamlet is an especially prized source for borrowed phrases. An extraordinary number of them remain in the public consciousness (even when misquoted): "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" "Goodnight, sweet prince" "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy" "Alas, poor Yorick; I knew him well" "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" (along with a half dozen other aphorisms from that scene) and, of course, "To be, or not to be ÄÄ that is the question" (Press F4 to return to previous view)  The character of Hamlet, like that of Oedipus, has become conversational shorthand for a particular human trait. Never mind that Sophocles' hero is more than a man who makes love to his mother (and that by accident), or that the Dane is not just a man who ponders when he should act. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  It's worth noting that when Hamlet does take action, four of the play's five major characters shuffle off this mortal coil in a mere 45 lines, a mortality rate even Titus Andronicus is hard pressed to match! As any actor will confirm, virtually all of Shakespeare's characters are rich and complex. Most importantly, they are characters with contradictions ÄÄ which, as Brecht has pointed out, makes them very human. (Even Shakespeare's minor characters are multidimensional.) Is Hamlet kind? He is to Horatio, and was to his father, yet he is exceedingly cruel to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, among others. Is he unable to act? He can't kill his father's murderer when the perfect opportunity presents itself, yet he casually orders the deaths of two old friends (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) and is quite hot-blooded about fighting Laertes in Ophelia's grave. Whoever Hamlet is in one scene, we may find another where he is someone quite different. But only in literature is there any expectation that a character is a constant, that one can use a straight-edge to draw a line through a character's actions. Yet you are not the same with your mother as with your lover, with with a co-worker as with a friend. If theatre should hold the mirror up to nature, why accept characters who lack dimension? (In truth, we don't ÄÄ Shakespeare's plays draw audiences throughout the world, while a production of a Ben Jonson play is a rarity. Yet it is Jonson's characters that can be summed up in a single phrase.) (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Consider young Fortinbras; is he simply the guy at the end who gets the bodies off a curtainless stage? As Jan Kott rightly points out, he is Hamlet's mirror, a young prince unencumbered by the weight of reasoning and contemplation. He acts directly, and will have his own way. He's onstage but briefly, yet he is an important counterweight to Hamlet himself. Hamlet may lose his way in a labyrinth of considerations, but is that Norwegian paragon of the Me Generation in any way a better man? Fortinbras' character is detailed in order that we may weigh our judgment of Hamlet. Or consider the two messengers in Act V of Macbeth; in interchanges of less than a dozen lines each, they detail the transformation of Macbeth's presence in the kingdom from vital and commanding to tired and out of touch. Such characters are easy to pass over in the reading of a Shakespearean play, especially when they lack obviously "choice" lines. (Readers invariably remember Macbeth's porter and overlook his steward Seyton, though their lines are roughly equal in number.) It is only in the acting that the richness and utter theatrical necessity of these roles emerges, especially when good actors and an alert director are part of the mix. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  The phrase "a sea of troubles" has engendered more editorial attempts at emendation than perhaps any other line in this play. Pope suggests "a siege of troubles;" Singer "th' assay of troubles;" Theobald "a 'say of troubles;" Hanmer "assailing troubles;" Bailey "the seat of troubles;" and so on. Luckily, for every critic who has taken a shot at emending this line, two have returned fire, finding no need for emendation. A "sea" might not be the metaphor that you or I would use here, but it's perfectly apt. True, it's a mixed metaphor, not tied to "slings and arrows" or "take arms," but it's only grammarians who forbid us from mixing metaphors; writers will go their own way no matter how much the grammarians scream. Shakespeare mixed metaphors quite frequently, as do ordinary people in speaking; to assume that the text is wrong ÄÄ even though it makes perfect sense ÄÄ on such flimsy grounds seems rather strange. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Hamlet is probably trying out the argument that death is simply an extended sleep. However, Capell would read the reverse sense, Hamlet doubting at this point in the speech that to die is to sleep. Hamlet in fact does consider that view, but not until later (To sleep, perchance to dream). (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Hamlet is saying, "Perhaps to die is to sleep, nothing more." (He's simply testing this thesis; he hasn't bought into it, and will reject it within a few lines.) The later Quartos and the Folios have no punctuation after sleep, and occasional editions have adopted this lack of punctuation. Unfortunately, this has caused occasional editors (and more than one actor) to read it as "To die is to sleep no more." However, starting with the rest of this line Hamlet defines that sleep explicitly as death, rendering such an interpretation without sense. (Perhaps they've wandered into the wrong play, since "Macbeth doth murder sleep.") (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Punctuation was not an exact science 375 years ago; it was often inconsistent, and many punctuation marks were omitted altogether. It has been the practice of most Shakespearean commentators to punctuate the text in the fashion of their time, making it as easy to read as possible. I believe overall this to be a valuable practice, and one I've continued here. However, at some point a student of a passage should return to an unemended Folio text rather than taking a particular editor's word. This practice is especially valuable for theatrical directors (and actors, though so few have the time). It is vital that an actor's phrasing not be confined by a punctuation scheme designed for reading rather than speaking. An editor's punctuation is not gospel ÄÄ nor is the Folio's. An actor must often choose between "how do I make this clear?" and "how do I satisfy the nitpickers who think that these plays should be read rather than performed?" Since the answer to the latter is, "you can't," most actors will rightfully concentrate on the former. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  The later Quartos and the Folios place punctuation after both sleep's: "To die to sleepe, to sleepe, perchance...." The punctuation problem suggests the actor's choice here ÄÄ where does Hamlet first consider that sleep may not remain untroubled by dreams? Accept the original punctuation, and perhaps he's mulling it over: "To die, to sleep, to sleep." He's just spent four lines equating sleep and death, after all. But now comes the "aha" ÄÄ "perchance to dream!" Put a stop after the first "sleep," and the actor has two equations: to die is to sleep, and to sleep is ÄÄ perhaps ÄÄ to dream. The "aha" comes between them. In any case, it's a trivial point, except to the actor. (But Shakespeare, an actor himself, is considered the ultimate actor's playwright, and all of his scenes are full of such choices.) (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Furness points out that the actor's emphasis will fall on "what" rather than on "dreams." He notes, "It is the kind of dreams from which Hamlet here recoils, not from the mere fact of dreaming." Hamlet has dealt with the idea of dreaming in the previous line. As a director, I have sat through countless hours of actors beating me about the ears with rigidly metrical blank verse. Acting well is the only thing on this planet as hard as skiing through a revolving door, yet I have trouble finding sympathy for "da DUM da DUM da DUM." This passage is one of many tests in Shakespeare of an actor's mastery of the material rather than of the rhythm. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  This is a short line (eight beats rather than ten). Shakespeare commonly uses such a meter to force a caesura, or short pause, after the fourth or sixth beat. The obvious break here follows "pause," but an actor could as easily take a hint to heighten "there's." An actor could also choose to lengthen "must." (It's not said with extra syllables; it simply takes longer to say, and is perhaps followed by a micro-pause.) Few actors today would allow the word "pause" to be followed by such a pause, except perhaps in a parody or farce. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Many commentators read "time" as meaning "the times," or "of the age." In fact, some go so far as to emend to "scorns of th' time," "scorns o' the times," or "scorns of tyrants." However, in simply living from day to day we endure many abuses, some real, some without basis, some imagined, yet all felt. Why not accept this phrase as it is? The awkward First Quarto gives "the scorns and flatt'ry of the world," which tends to support the general sense of "time passing" rather than "the current age." (For context, see the Note (scorn) [quarto].) (Press F4 to return to previous view)  The Second, Third, and Fourth Quartos read "proud;" the Folios read "poor," which reading is transcribed here. Most commentators have pointed out that one more often suffers contumely (insolent abuse) from a proud or arrogant man than from a poor man. They see "poor" as an accidental mis- transcription of "proud" that occurred when the First Folio was set in type and that has been perpetuated ever since. Their reasoning makes sense. Nevertheless, the First Quarto (see Note (poor) [quarto]), despised as it may be for its inaccuracy and general strangeness, contains in this part of the soliloquy the phrase "the rich cursed of the poor." "Poor" is clearly the proper word here; "proud" would be out of place. Thus it seems quite possible that it is the Second Quarto's "proud" that is a mis-transcription, finally corrected in the more carefully prepared First Folio. (In addition, this is not the only place that Hamlet looks down on the poor or lower class; he scorns the groundlings [those in the "cheap seats"] in his instructions to the players in the next scene.) (See also Enumeration of ills.) For an actor's edition, I might choose "proud" on the grounds that, having equal textual merit, it sharpens the meaning for actor and audience. This not being such an edition, I'm quite content to accept the Folio reading. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Furness makes an interesting point about this series of travails that Hamlet feels subjected to: "In the enumeration of these ills, is it not evident that Shakespeare is speaking in his own person? As Johnson says, these are not the ills that would particularly strike a prince." (Press F4 to return to previous view)  The later Quartos give despised ("despiz'd") instead of the Folios' disprized ("dispriz'd"). A reasonable case could be made for either reading, although I'd be inclined to accept ÄÄ from the context ÄÄ the Folio text. A love that is undervalued or unrequited (disprized) may perhaps be a more universal ill than one that is laughed at by the object of affection (despised). As Furness writes about this debate, "Scarcely is the ink dry which has marked out a certain reading before reason and probability seem to shift to the side of the rejected reading." (Press F4 to return to previous view)  This could well be a small ("bare" as in "barely") dagger rather than an unsheathed one. In the theatre, however, an audience will hear the latter sense. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  The meter is a bit off here, leading to suppositions of "who'd these fardels bear," a difference of pronunciation rather than text, or "who would fardels bear," the text of the later Quartos. But the Quarto reading makes little sense compared to the Folios'. Hamlet has just listed a series of powerful arguments for escaping life; omitting "these" simply adds another to the list, one that is quite meaningless ÄÄ having survived some real troubles, should we kill ourselves simply because we have to shlep some bundles on our back? However, "who would these fardels bear" makes fardel a metaphor for the real ills Hamlet has just enumerated. As for the rhythm, it requires of an actor but the slightest elision (don't announce the "w" in "would") to retain both meter and sense. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Various critics of ages past complained that "grunt" was too low and graphic a word for the great Shakespeare, replacing it with "groan." (Are these critics of the same stock as the folks who insist that plays as "noble" as these could not have been written by a mere tradesman from the Provinces?) As for the first, Knight responds, "The players in their squeamishness always give us 'groan'; and if they had not the terror of the blank verse before them, they would certainly inflict 'perspire' upon us." And as for the author of the plays, anyone who has ever acted Shakespeare can have no doubt that Shakespeare was a man of the theatre. One does not need to be a nobleman to write extraordinary plays; witness Moliere and Brecht, to name but two obvious examples. Moliere, Brecht, and Shakespeare all lived for the theatre, working theatrefolk in need of an audience, and their work shares a common thread that is obvious to any actor ÄÄ their plays are populated by very real people. The reverse also holds; plays written by "literary giants" with no theatrical connections may be great poetry (e.g., Murder in the Cathedral) but make for desperate acting. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Some have said, "But Hamlet has been talking throughout to his father's ghost, a traveler who did return." It's a silly quibble, answerable at its own level: "The ghost is not a traveler who has left the corporeal world for a sojourn elsewhere, from which he has now returned; he has not returned to this world in any form such as he left it; nor has he returned to stay." (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Native hue = natural color. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  Many see in this line the crux of Hamlet's character ÄÄ he knows he should take action, but he can't because he thinks too much. This view seems simplistic in the extreme, and it is better discussed elsewhere. (See, for example, the note on Public Consciousness.) What is appropriate here, however, is to note that deriving such an interpretation of Hamlet from the word "thought" in this section stands on a misperception of the meaning of thought[?glossary] in this context. Hamlet says, "we'd quickly act (to free ourselves of this world) but for our worry ("thought") of what may come after death." (Press F4 to return to previous view)  The Second, Third, and Fourth Quartos all read "pitch" instead of "pith;" all Folio editions, however, read "pith." By meaning alone, "pitch" seems the liklier choice (see Pitch[?glossary]), with "pith" perhaps a misprint made when the First Folio was set in type. From a working director's standpoint, however, "pith" recommends itself well to performance for a modern audience. Pith retains a current meaning (see Pith[?glossary]) which quite ably supports the sense of the speech, whereas "pitch" may lead modern ears down the wrong path (the tossing of a boat? a thrown ball? black tar?). I'm not suggesting that Shakespearean text should be "modernized" (although Olivier did little enough damage with his emendations of Hamlet for film), but in the theatre a director has a responsibility to the audience to make meanings clear. When two equally supportable choices arise, most directors will grab the one that makes meaning or action the clearer. Because this is a study guide rather than an actor's edition, I've retained the Folio reading. As a director, I'd have the actor use the Quartos' "pitch." (Press F4 to return to previous view)  The later Quartos have "turn awry," the Folios "turn away." Are the currents of action simply deflected ("awry"), or do they change their course entirely ("away")? The Folio text, suggesting a stronger action, may be more appropriate for the climax of Hamlet's reasoning. (Press F4 to return to previous view)  The text here has been retranscribed by Steven Brant from a facsimile edition of the First Folio. The original copy, in excellent condition, is owned by Yale's Elizabethan Club Library. Mr. Brant takes full responsibility for any points of spelling or punctuation with which the reader wishes to disagree ÄÄ and for the interpretive choices in the notes accompanying the text. (Press F4 to return to previous view)