Talk:To be, or not to be/Archives/2023/December

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)

I am studying this play and can say that the way it is written is very important. In the play Shakespeare switches between prose and poetry in order to characterize Hamlet and others and it is incredibly important that it not be switched from original format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.103.75 (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the main thing. There are sections that are written out as prose but this ain't one of them. Among other things, it changes the timing on some of the lines. — LlywelynII 09:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Why is this gone? Do they have their own wiki? — LlywelynII 09:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's attributed to Cory Calhoun here [[1]]. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

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 ..

Many old words have e's at the end, i don't know why. it means the same with or without the E. Bourn or bourne means a destination or a limit.

Kindly remember to sign your posts. In any case, the old versions should use the spelling of their version; the modern version should have the modern spelling; and US/UK differences should be sorted out under WP:ENGVAR (in short, whoever got here first). — LlywelynII 09:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

This was resolved long ago, but a note on it: "Soft you now" may be a reaction to Ophelia's entrance, but Hamlet is almost certainly still talking to himself -- telling himself to "soft now" -- not Opehlia. In addition to its traditional inclusion as part of the soliloquy in a wide variety of selected texts, I think the decision to leave it in has been quite right. Justin Bacon (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the numerous ways Just in Bacon was right above, there's another reason to include it (aside from the placement and the sex joke). The "bad dreams" Hamlet is contemplating presumably involve hell and his contemplation of its existence mostly centers on whether he'd end up there. The "sins" her "orizons" cause to be "remembred" directly touch on the state of Hamlet's soul and where it's headed if things go awa/ry with the king.

So in short, not a nit. Just yr scalp. No need to pick. — LlywelynII 09:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Parody

Does not Mark Twain's parody of this soliloquy in Huck Finn deserve mention?

Remember to sign your posts.

But tell us more about this parody. — LlywelynII 08:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a parody of the soliloquy in Huckleberry Finn. It also includes bits of Macbeth and others. See the text at Gutenberg (Huckleberry Finn). Search for "bodkin" to jump to the soliloquy. There should probably be links in both Shakespeare related articles and Mark Twain related articles, but I'll leave it to someone else to figure it out. Philh-591 (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Added an entry to Cultural references to Hamlet. Philh-591 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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.-- ExpImp^talkcon 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 summary

I was bold and changed [2] 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)

I propose undoing the 12/4/12 edit because it presents opinion both on what is "apparent from context" - too vague and subjective - and the meaning of "suffer the slings and arrows.." which some think means Hamlet's particular travails or something else but not "living a hard life". There is no critical concensus so wiki should just present the range of views. Pertin1x (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This article has gone backwards. The 'helpful' section on what the speech means and why it's there is pure opinion and largely fatuous. You have removed the factual paragraph about where it is in the plot, who's on stage and who can see/hear who. The most significant fact about the speech in general culture is the range of views on what it means and the impression of intellectual conundrum. A popular encyclopaedia should reflect that, discuss some if it and not itself adopt a position. For example the equation of 'to act' with 'to be' is modern, inspired or succoured - should that be 'suckered'? - by existentialism. No Elizabethan would get it. It also assumes that the 'To be' side of 'the question' equates to 'to take arms against a sea if troubles' which is explicitly 'to die'. You can't have it both ways: if he's discussing suicide, 'not to be' means death. It can't simultaneously mean 'live inauthentically'. Pertin1x (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Cultural References

Brave New World

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)

Invasion of the Body Snatchers

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)

Chinese popularity

In case this section ever comes back to the article (it should probably go into some article about Hamlet, really), I'll just note here that this soliloquy is by far the most famous piece of Shakespeare in modern China. Now, that has to do with the fact that Chinese culture is built on puns: "to be" sounds like "two be" which can be written "2B" which (in Chinese) is pronounced "RB" (二B) which sounds like 二逼 which is the (somewhat) politer version of 二屄 which technically means "double c***" but (thanks to the Chinese equivalents of "dumb c***") is used in the sense of "f***in' idiot". 2B or not 2B... — LlywelynII 10:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The Mighty Boosh

Zookeeper Howard Moon quotes the soliloquy, remarking 'death, the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveller returns.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.50.81 (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Edition

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)

The speech as shown now is the First Folio with four changes from second quarto, spelling updated. The changes are in italic. Someone removed the end-of-line indication of what the F version of each of these was but an easy comparison is available in the facsimile image further down the page. If you think the F original of any of these is better, go ahead and amend it but also remove the italics and change the header numbering the changes. Any offered text is debatable and has problems. If the second quarto is thought overall a better template I would agree, but it would still have to have some corrections from F. Most editors freely repunctuate but this imposes a degree of interpretation so I have kept the Folio's (the more economical punctuation in the 2nd Quarto is one reason to prefer it).Pertin1x (talk) 10:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't emend the text. Use someone else's. — LlywelynII 08:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Nah, the comma sucks. Not the biggest thing since we can keep a redirect going but people looking for this page aren't going to be using it. It's not a quote: it's a title and I'd wager decent money that people don't refer to "Hamlet's 'To Be, Not To Be' soliloquy". It drops out.

As far as the edition, use the actual folios. — LlywelynII 04:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Crazy idea. Just use the original folio versions. Those can be a little hard to find (so Wikipedia's helpful) and the "modern English spelling" ones are chockablock on Google.

If we've got to pick one, better you get a scholarly ed. rather than Gute's and run it as parallel text with the original. — LlywelynII 04:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Meaning

section

there is no section for meaning/translation on the article. can somebody please add it? the whole page talks about Shakespeare and a play or something, when he phrase is used commonly and a section explaining what it means is useful. Such explanation is missing from the rest of the internet too, I have been searching for several hours and all I get are random groups of people arguing about a play or something, I am unsure what they are referring to (although the name Shakespeare is mentioned frequently). BTW: I even looked on the disambiguation page and there is nothing there to tell me what this phrase means!

If the above paragraph has not persuaded you to add a section somewhere in Wikipedia explaining why random people say this and what it means when they say it, please do a search engine query on the phrase and you will see my frustration (unless you understand Shakespeare and what the page currently contains). 134.186.234.108 (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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, Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew, Or that the Everlasting had not fixed His canon 'gainst self-slaughter.

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

You can't really assume the play intends anything. It's certainly not a didactic exercise. To the extent it is, Hamlet is a complete failure and a cautionary tale. — LlywelynII 08:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

I would tend to agree that the soliloquy is about more than just suicide. It's a complex text. But "his own quietus make with a bare bodkin" makes it pretty much explicit that Hamlet is talking about suicide. He's not talking about Claudius' quietus, but his own. Justin Bacon (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. — LlywelynII 08:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Article states as fact the opinion that Hamlet is suicidal whereas many readers and critics regard the speech as too abstract and detached (certainly compared to the others soliloquies) to be suicidal. Since it certainly discusses suicide (see previous comment) the remaining possibility is that it is purely philosophical, which is appropriate to the character and explains why (cf Stoicism) it treats suicide as a respectable option to the extent that not committing it is 'cowardly', a condemnation that under any Christian analysis makes Hamlet implausibly resemble Richard III ('Conscience is but a word that cowards use'). It is a good example of how late-mediaeval discourse could separate religion from philosophy: as a Christian Hamlet is absolutely persuaded he may not commit suicide but as a philosopher he may discuss it as approvingly as argument requires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.87.144.218 (talk) 10:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion warrants adding claudius to the list of possible meanings. I have been told in class discussion that claudius is the "sea of troubles" and the subject of the poem beyond that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradlysneezer3 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM.

This discussion is all unsourced opinion and general chat about the topic. Rather then a discussion about how to improve the article.Smitty1337 (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Making your quietus with a bare bodkin is suicide, explicitly and unambiguously. I think the speculation to the contrary should be removed from the article unless acceptable sources for it are forthcoming. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

See Smits? The discussion was on point: since the guys saying it isn't about suicide didn't address the text or provide sources, DWS knew he could remove their commentary from the article. 天天上上 — LlywelynII 09:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To be like King Hamlet

"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)

You take a very roundabout way of getting there; it wasn't in the First Quarto; and the death/suicide meaning definitely predominates, but good catch (I.i.~124). — LlywelynII 05:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What is the answer?

"To be or, not to be"

If that is Hamlets question, then what is the answer? i am dying to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.216.243 (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Forty-two. 91.105.10.103 (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If there would be an answer, would the question still be relevant? It is this question that describes life. For as something that is as it is, is not life. We strive to improvement with as goal to escape from nothing ("not to be"). We serve life, the force of existence and the opposite of the force of nothing (gravity).

Our urge for progress and improvement comes forth out of this force. It is not goalless or 'accidental', if has as purpose to thrive to existence in eternity. It is an effect of the interaction between 'existence' and 'nothing'. 'To be' and 'not to be' in eternity.

There is no beginning and no end.

Also see this video of Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.

There is more to it however. Finding balance in 'finding balance' will lead to nothing/non existence and unbalance.

It is incredibly difficult to find stability in eternity. Because if you would actually have or almost have existence, you actually would have less or nothing at all.

It is hard to imagine, but maybe this is what is being described with the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.167.2.175 (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. See my reply to your post below. — LlywelynII 04:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

To be.

He answers it within the soliloquy but admits that he chooses that answer only out of fear despite being unhappy with his life. In the larger context of the play, the fuller answer is something like "to risk not to be in order fully to be": Hamlet's fear of death from going against a sitting king—he doesn't want to be evil and kill Claudius surreptitiously but he isn't sure how well "a ghost told me to" will play with the court, plus (now that he knows there is an afterlife) brazenly murdering someone usually has issues and he wants to make sure Claud doesn't sneak into Heaven (esp. when dad is talking about the flames he's in)—and he ends up pretty ineffective: along the way to Claudius, he ends up getting himself, his friends, his lover, and his mom all killed plus his kingdom taken over by Norwegians. The "answer" is the alternative presented by Fortinbras, who (even though his dad was killed openly in the field) puts his house in order, gets a solid base of support, and then goes out to crush everyone even related to the people who messed with dad. As far as we know, his mom, lover(s), and friends are all fine at the end of the play. — LlywelynII 04:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Describing the process and source of life, not Suicide?

Think about it: what is the source of life? Could the physical be the source for itself? Naturally it is most likely an interaction between two eternal forces, the force of existence and the force of nothing (gravity). As the psyche is a direct exponent of the source of life (the force of existence), you can find many answers to essential information about the universe, nature and life in your psyche. Maybe this knowledge is shared in Hamlet.

Furthermore: 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.

I read this from it: "To be or not to be (something in this world), wether it feels nobler in our mind to suffer poverty, or to take arms against a sea of trouble (this is required if you want to become a billionaire/make a fortune) and by actually doing so, those troubles will disapear but not when you are not opposing them. So the question would be: to be or not to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.167.2.175 (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you've got money on your mind, but Hamlet is clearly talking about death: either escaping altogether (suicide) or risking it by seeking his revenge against a sitting king (the main action of the play).

There are interesting things to be said about considering the universe to be a creation of your own mind and trying to feel better about it: most of them are pretty horrible, though. It's very childish, self-involved, and unhelpful for solving real problems about how the real world really works (cf. science, technology). Some of the problems of "looking within for the answers" are evident in your writing: gravity is part of existence for all forms of matter and something very close to the opposite of "nothing"; I'm unsure what you think exponent means but the psyche isn't one.

You do sound troubled though. This soliloquy is talking to you: life is very hard and everyone you meet is enduring a great struggle. Good luck with yours and (when you come to this play) remember that Hamlet isn't the role model. Fortinbras is. — LlywelynII 04:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

He had a book

The first line of Hamlet's famous monologue about death and its consequences. The text continues as follows: "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. ................ "

These lines describe the classical choice we have to make when we get into trouble: do we accept our fate because we see the suffering as a just punishment for our sins (mere fatality has no deep roots in western civlization), or, do we put up a fight and try to eliminate the problems and perhaps even those who threaten us. It makes you think of the biblical story about Job's submission to God's will. Perhaps it makes you think of how some historians have blamed the Jews for this same passive attitude of submission to their fate which in their view made the holocaust possible, or at least more easily feasible. In their opinion the Jews should have taken "arms against a sea of troubles".

Certainly in Shakepeare's day more than in ours this was a real dilemma. The medieval attitude of humble acceptance of suffering seen as God's will was still considered to be a morally elevated (noble) way of dealing with problems in one's life. The fact that this dilemma gets so much emphasis at this point in the play is a bit unexpected. Hamlet has already promised his father "to take arms", that is, to revenge his father's murder, hasn't he? Is he having second thoughts on philosophical or moral grounds, then? The answer is clearly negative, his dawdling mainly results from his hesitation about who or what the ghost really is and whether it tells the truth about his uncle.

The four lines state a moral, a philosophical problem. The funny thing, however, is that Hamlet, distracted by intense emotions of sadness (his father's death), fear (the confrontation with his father's ghost) and hatred (his mother's behaviour and his uncle's crime), should bring up this philosophical discussion at all. Also, the wording is out of character: commentators have pointed out the stiffness of the language in these lines and the (very much unlike Shakespeare), mixed metaphor (arms against a sea of .... ). The lines just don't seem to fit in. On top of this there is the problem of logical continuity and coherence in the first six lines. I have not been able to find a clear and straightforward explanation, experts give a few more or less acceptable interpretations.

All in all, a confusing business. Maybe, just maybe, a look at a contemporary version of the play, the so-called "First Quarto" of Hamlet can be of some help. Even though this is recognizably the same play, it is radically different. It's much shorter and some of the names are different. So why look at it? Well, the part with the monologue in it is much like our accepted version.

Here are some of the lines from this part of the play in the First Quarto:
King: See where he comes poring upon a book.
Enter Hamlet
Corambis: And here, Ofelia, read you on this book And walk aloof; the king shall be unseen.
Exeunt the King and Corambis
Hamlet: To be, or not to be; ay there's the point. To die, to sleep: is that all? Ay all.

Yes, the four lines we have just discussed are missing! And yes, Hamlet appears with a book on the stage here. In the commonly used version his mother mentions his being occupied with a book in the second act. Well, he is a student, isn't he. Students use books. But surely this isn't a time for him to be doing his homework? An explanation could be that he is trying to find advice on how to proceed in the tricky situation he finds himself in in a theological or philosophical work. After all, it is not an unnatural act for a student to try and find answers to problems in books.

Once you accept the possibility that Hamlet is reading a book , a book in which he hopes to find good advice, when he appears on the stage just before his conversation with Ophelia, a new explanation of the first few lines of the monologue offers itself. The problems of coherence and style would vanish if the four lines did not express Hamlet's thoughts, but were read aloud by him from the book (a philosophical work)he is holding.

Suddenly the passage becomes clear: in his search for an answer to his problems in philosophical literature Hamlet has come across the dilemma of the basic attitudes of acceptance versus resistance in life. Hamlet, however, rejects this dilemma outright. To be or not to be, to live or to die, that is what he sees as the real choice. He rejects the moral/philosophical authority of his book which gives him the choice of passive acceptance or active resistance. That just will not do in Hamlet's view. The real choice for him, at that point in the play, is the one between life and death, not between two different attitudes in life.

Looking at the text in this way, the first line does not explicitly mention suicide but the idea of suicide is implicitly there, of course. The remaining part of the monologue deals with the consequences of the choice for death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantar (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, thank you for copying your term paper. You make a bunch of unsourced, blanket, and highly questionable points, though: to pick two from the intro, "fatalism" didn't need to be imported from a far-distant language and "the Jews" are part of (in fact, one of the primary sources of) Western culture. The first line does not directly mention suicide, only death, but the rest of the speech makes it fairly clear that it's a possibility he's (at least pretending to) mull over. — LlywelynII 04:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Context

A Dismally Puerile Morass of Unreferenced Interpretation

The entire interpretation section is unverified. It reads like an opinion piece. It either needs alot of citations, or perhaps just partial deletion. Perhaps a rewrite and trimming it down (along with some citation) would be more appropriate, as i'm sure there are some sources on interpretation this. In the mean time I tagged a lot of it so readers don't assume that if it's written it must be true. Any thoughts? Smitty1337 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it's unreferenced but it's not opinion, unlike previous versions of this article and some edits to it. The critical literature is amazingly divergent on this topic which wiki should reflect, but rather than list or quote the multifarious interpretations I aimed for helpful succinctness by summarising how they diverge. I don't know of any other source which reflects and explains the diversity of interpretation.Pertin1x (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is why simple references to each opinion is a better choice than blatant non-reference. A reference to one proponent of one topic, followed by another reference to another topic. To wit: "Some people say X (citation A), while others say Y (citation B)." Amazing divergence of opinion does not provide an exception for "please cite all sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.46.70.6 (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The whole section should be deleted. There is no citation, no reference to these "others, "some", "critics", etc. -- absolutely nothing to back up the interpretive claims, which read like vomited-up notes from a cut-rate discussion section of a freshman English lit class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.165.107.205 (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the section. Any discussion of this ought to be sourced to scholarly works. Anyone who wants to keep it has had months to add some citations, and has not done so. john k (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite right John, bin it - though I notice no-one contested what it said. I wrote it but I don't have time to dig up all the references. It seems a pity that Wiki should offer no commentary at all on the variety and inconclusiveness of interpretation on this most famous of all speeches so I look forward to the next effort.Pertin1x (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the state of the secondary literature to really comment on the content. It didn't discuss what I had understand to be one of the big questions of the soliloquy, which was the question of whether Hamlet realizes he is being watched or not, and I was uncertain about much of what was there - it didn't very strongly resemble my impressions of scholarly debate on the soliloquy, but, again, I am not in any way an expert on the literature. Certainly some kind of discussion of the content is in order, but it ought to be based on the best secondary sources - what was there struck me as likely containing at least some OR material. john k (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

No, nothing original unless you call arranging others' views into a sort of taxonomy original, though I may have been free with pointing out the obvious flaws. I have my own opinion but it wasn't in there. The notion that Hamlet is aware he is watched during the soliloquy (as opposed to during the succeeding dialogue) is I think not well supported among critics.Pertin1x (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs context

I removed the existing line about vague "different opinions" as to its meaning. People can be tendentious in the name of scholarship, but the major controversies (does he know he's being watched or not?) really have very little importance to the reasoning of the piece itself or to its place within the general movement of the play's action.

We need a section on general context for general readers.

I've fleshed out the noncontroversial rhetorical level of the piece (he's talking about death, fear, and cowardice with pointed application to suicide or directly confronting the king); admitted the bit that is controversial (possibly genuine, possibly feigning); and fleshed out the noncontroversial dramatic importance of the piece (ruins Polonius's hopes, disquiets the king, upsets Ophelia) while not overstating the case (it isn't certain Ophelia committed suicide at all, let alone that it was a straight line from this scene to that choice; likewise, it's uncertain whether Claudius had already begun planning how best to kill Hamlet). This is all straightforward and based on the direct text of the play.

I know, I know. It's better to wade through the scholarship and find people who point out each obvious thing. That said, can we all agree that some context is better than no context and that this is a case for WP:NORULES?

If not and you do want to remove my gloss, could you kindly replace it with a better and cited one? Otherwise, kindly realize, however well-intentioned, you're not actually being helpful. Obviously, if I did get something wrong, fix that or note whatever non-WP:FRINGE alt view applies; just remember that WP:RS is a good thing but it's a good thing in service to our readers. No context at all is a disservice. — LlywelynII 03:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Pith/Pitch

Pith & Doth

"pith" and moment or "pitch" and moment? I think it's pitch, my version of the play, published by Cambridge 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

It's "pith" in the First Folio, and "pitch" in the Second Quarto. It looks like it's "does" instead of "doth" in both versions, though. JiveTalkinChoirBoy (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pith means the inner part of a stem (on a plant), strength/vigor, or significance. Doth means the third person present tense of "do", so "she doth shine like a star" would mean she does shine like a star.

No, the third person present tense of "do" is "does". Doth is a variant of "doeth", which was an old version, but as JTCB pointed out, Shakespeare doesn't seem to have used it here. — LlywelynII 09:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

pith v. pitch

I'd like to re-raise the issue of 'pith' versus 'pitch' in line 87 of the soliloquy. A user above, back in 2009, commented that his copy, published by Cambridge University Press, used pitch in place of pith, and I think that the article was changed accordingly. In Oxford University Press's edition of Hamlet, a footnote to the word states that "[T]he Cambridge editors, while preferring Q2's 'pitch' to F's 'pith', point out that the Players' Quartos of 1676, 1683, 1695, and 1703, 'have, contrary to their custom, followed the Folios, which may possibly indicate that 'pith' was the reading according to the stage tradition'". I infer that CUP is in a minority position with regards to the wording and think that the article should be changed to reflect the position taken by the Oxford editors, with their footnote to clarify some preferences for 'pitch'. I would change the article myself, but I neglected to view the page history and thought I'd get opinion before changing what may have gained consensus in the past. 86.185.178.114 (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There are also things to say about 'consummation', 'despised', 'proud' and 'bourn', and punctuation in general so perhaps a new section is in order.Pertin1x (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What is there to "reraise"? Just include all the major variants. I finally added the actual text (w/source) of the Q1 version; just include the Q2 one and footnote the F1 with this commentary. — LlywelynII 03:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Title

Shouldn't there be a question mark?

Since this is in fact a question, should it not be marked as such? Fred Gandt (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

no. Its him listing 2 options then a poetic kind of way implying a question of picking between the two options, he does not ask this inquisitively he merely declares that IS the question, rather then ask it (since he's talking to himself anyways) Smitty1337 (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comparison is by default questioning. Even a rhetorical question should be punctuated by a question mark. E.g. I think to myself: "I wonder what time it is?". "To be. Not to be. They are my options." would be a statement, without question. Fred Gandt (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

there is no ? in the origional text, thats the real reason. Your applying grammar rules that did not exist in 1599. This line is intended to be said in a manner similar to how you state ""To be. Not to be. They are my options." he is simply stating 2 options then confirming that that is his dilema, the "that is the question" was origionally "aye thats the point" which changed in the Folio to its current version. at any rate none of this is relevent, because this is a literary work being quoted and it has no ? and wiki doesnt alter the grammar of quotes Smitty1337 (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, the 16th century had grammar and question marks and the "I that's that point" is from something that might just be a knock-off script. You're right that there shouldn't be a ? here, though, and that Shakespeare's choice probably reflects the way he wanted the actors to phrase the thing. — LlywelynII 04:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome. TY for the explanation Smitty. Nice to meet you. Fred Gandt (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hamlet's soliloquy

Shouldn't this article be called "Hamlet's soliloquy", since that is, in fact, the focus of the article? Or rather, do we really need an entire article just on the phrase "to be or not to be"? I don't mean to enfardle anyone, but... --Ludwigs2 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Hamlet's got a bunch of soliloquys. This article is about this one. — LlywelynII 04:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comma

The title shouldn't have a comma, should it? — thesublime514 • talk • 23:38, July 8, 2007 (UTC)

Nope. — LlywelynII 04:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

There is a comma in the script, actually, but you're still right about the page title. — LlywelynII 04:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Title with or without the comma

(discussion moved from User talk:Widefox) Dear Widefox

re your reasons for altering article title:

What "To be, or not to be" is an example of in the Manual of Style is the use or rather non-use of quotation marks in a title, not of precision in punctuation - on the contrary the MS recommends that titles are not overprecise and are how someone not expert in the subject would know and look for it, and since no-one other than a literary expert would have any idea what if any punctuation there is in a line of Shakespeare I deleted the comma as pedantic. I also submit that the disambiguator "(Shakespeare)" is not redundant because of the many article titles starting with the same phrase. Respectfully, Pertin1x (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't agree with the bold move of this article (change of title) from To be, or not to be to To be or not to be (Shakespeare). I think considering this title is an example in the WP:MOS (whichever section), it would be wise to gain consensus here first, and then if successful involve the folk at the WP:MOS talk page to change the MOS. Without either consensus, WP:BRD is appropriate. I don't find overprecise has any weight when it comes to quotes. The MOS details to include " in titles, so punctuation does not seem to be an issue. Widefox; talk 23:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

On the point of "(Shakespeare)", I disagree per WP:PRECISE ("Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." emphasis mine) and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC ("A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."). I think it would be difficult to say that any of those other articles titled would be so titled without the existence of the famous quotation. --Izno (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

that's right - the proposed title breaks the quote and adds a superfluous qualifier "(...)" . Widefox; talk 09:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's no big deal as long as there are redirects but the MOS counsels against hyperprecision: people are going to be looking for this without the comma; the comma would not exist in proper modern English; and the title shouldn't have it with or without the quotes. It's not as though the pretense of "quoting" the passage has stopped the current page from "tidying up" things about the original texts that they don't like, such as the spelling and long Ss.

The WP:COMMONNAME issue here isn't whether the texts of Shakespeare have it: it's whether the mentions of this text (i.e., its "title") have it. In other words, do people write "In Hamlet's 'To Be or Not To Be' soliloquy" or do people write "In Hamlet's 'To Be, or Not To Be' soliloquy"? When people reference this text by writing out the first line, do they include the comma or not?

Count me in as a vote against the comma (along with thesublime514; VolatileChemical; & Pertin1x) when that discussion comes up again. (For what it's worth, I'm also against any needless qualifiers: this is the PRIMARYTOPIC of the namespace.) — LlywelynII 03:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

Since the text is in modern spelling can't we also use modern capitalization? The capitalization in the text as is looks very jarring to modern eyes, and adds no useful information. It represents an old printing convention, like using y for thorn. Jer ome (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it as long as we're also presenting the original forms. The problem you're going to run into, though, is that we don't want the "Modern" version to be hodge-podge of "I think this kinda sounds better"/"Are you crazy?"/"Lets just rewrite it as rap" fights. You should find a scholarly and WP:RS for whichever version of the text you like and include the citation so other editors can check what's going on. — LlywelynII 07:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Font

Turned the old text into Georgia to look better. I'm sure there are better fonts, but Georgia is preloaded on all Windows and Apple machines. If people hate it, kindly don't replace it with a less common font. Just nix it altogether or wrap the text in <tt>...</tt> tags or find some other way to set the text apart. Maybe a set of quote boxes or tables? — LlywelynII 07:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Are great to have. Wonderful stuff.

"References", on the other hand, where you put a list of important-sounding books at the bottom of your page without incorporating or citing them at all in the actual article are (if anything) unhelpful. I've removed the following here:

• Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Philip Edwards, ed., updated edition 2003. (New Cambridge Shakespeare)
• Hamlet. Harold Jenkins, ed., 1982. (The Arden Shakespeare)
• Lewis, C.S., Studies in Words. Cambridge UP, 1960 (reprinted 2002).
• Schopenhauer, Arthur, The World as Will and Representation, Volume I. E.F.J. Payne, tr. Falcon Wing's Press, 1958. Reprinted by Dover, 1969.
• "Something Rotten". Jasper Forde 2004
• "The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark". Washington Square Press, ed., 1992. (Folger Shakespeare Library)

Kindly restore them to the article as they are used by inline citations and not before (We could certainly use some to support the general introduction and context at the top of the page). Otherwise, they create the illusion that the article is well referenced when it actually isn't. — LlywelynII 09:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever

• Lines taken from Geroilamo Cardano's 1543 De Consolatione, translated into English as Cardanus Comforte by Thomas Marshe in 1575.

was originally discussing has also been removed, so reinclude it to the references when we figure out what it was talking about... — LlywelynII 09:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

>Cardano discusses death in terms of dreamless sleep (taken from Plato's Apology) and foreign travel (don't know source) and talks about man being nothing but his mind. It was translated by Bedingfield, not Marshe, at the request of Edward de Vere so Oxfordians are keen on it being Hamlet's source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.21.217 (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

F or S?

The transcription of the 1604 edition has words like "fleepe, "euerlafting", etc. Those "f" should be "s". The printed characters look like "f" to modern eyes, but readers and printers of the time recognized them as "s" (and distinguished them from true "f", which looked quite diffrerent). Thus they definitely read "sleepe", "euerlasting", etc.

On the other hand, it is not clear whether some of the "u" should be changed to "v". I do not know whether the printers used different type for the two lowercase letters, and whether the readers were able to see the difference. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with leaving the u's alone. U's and v's were the same letters at that time (unlike f and 'long s'); generally the practice was to use the v form when the letter was at the beginning of a word and the u form anywhere else. No idea how consistent it was, but it's not at all the same situation as long s and f, which looked similar but had nothing to do with each other whatsoever, and had different typefaces. Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia page about long s. Philh-591 (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

traveLLer

The North American spelling may be traveLer, but Shakespeare was not from L.A. In his spelling, as in the rest of the English-speaking world, it's traveLLer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.56.251.61 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is in a shocking state

I read this expecting to be informed about scholarly interpretations of this speech, with sources of course, but all I find is a restatement of several versions and a ragbag of references to it in popular culture. Surely we can do better than this with one of the best-known speeches in English drama? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Couldn’t agree more. Who changed ‘does makes cowards’ to ‘doth make cowards’? I know Branagh, Olivier and Gibson say ‘doth’ but Q2 and F agree on ‘does’. On meaning: there’s very little one can authoritatively quote or cite on the meaning of the speech since there is such disagreement among the supposed authorities. Whatever you put up, someone will take down. Even tame stuff. Any summary of what has been said about it would be long and tedious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pertin1x (talk • contribs) 11:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Broken WikiSource

The link to Wikisource sends the user to a deleted page. סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Grimmchild: Thanks. Fixed. Xover (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)