Though Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy from the play of the same name is certainly one of the most famous in Shakespeare’s canon, how often do we read or listen past the first few lines? We have heard Hamlet discussing and debating the merits of life and death, but what, if any, bearing have his thoughts on our modern outlooks? Are his fears still our fears?

Let us not forget where we find Hamlet; sorrowful, grief-stricken, depressed, but also angry, indecisive, and confused. His father is dead at his uncle’s hand, and now he must bear the knowledge or assert his own claim to the Danish throne. Here, Newell points out the “root dualism of the play” (38). The “(i) introspection, deathly melancholia, and a kind of half-willing passivity and (ii) strong government (the king), martial honor…and lively normality…” (38). What Hamlet faces is an internal battle, not with death, but with his own values. Hamlet contemplates death, even suicide, versus taking up arms against his uncle, the king, and he is miserable in his indecision. Should he live on in a “sea of troubles,” or take his chances in the afterlife, that “undiscovered country” (Shakespeare 65)?

For Hamlet, both options bring continued responsibilities as well as an ending of sorts. “To be” means to sit quiet, hold his peace, and suffer silently with the knowledge of his uncle’s crimes. “Not to be,” on the other hand, means to rise up against his enemy and possibly die in the conflict, leaving his kingdom no better and ruler-less. Vincent Petronella notices an interesting comparison in Hamlet’s speech: “‘To be’ (to live) is parallel with ‘to suffer’ and with the bearing of the whips and scorns of time; whereas, ‘not to be’ (to die) is parallel with the ideas of taking arms against a sea of troubles and the quietus.” (79). Inaction breeds internal suffering and external peace, while action, or reaction, renders any number of unknown outcomes. The unknown prompts Hamlet’s musings on the afterlife, and our all-too-human fear both that there is “nothing” and “something” after death.

Is there a more human response than fear of the unknown? Hamlet’s soliloquy speaks to this fear in all of us, but also reminds us we have options. The duality continues as Petronella notes

If Hamlet chooses to be, he must make the further choice as to whether he will suffer or take arms; if he chooses to take arms, he must choose either to end his troubles or to end his own life; and if he chooses to end his own life, he is split between whether he will sleep in oblivion or dream in some afterlife (76).

“To be,” here in the present, to actively participate in life, or “not to be” alive at all, merely existing. In either case, we face a number of unknown options. Like Hamlet, we must also choose when to bear the insult, the shame, the unfairness in silence, and when to rise up against our enemies and fight.

One modern outlook is simplified into the phrase “you only live once.” It could very well be Hamlet’s twenty-first century soliloquy. If we decide to live, “to be,” then we will suffer, we will hurt, and we may die in the battle. “Not to be,” however, isn’t a life at all, and as Hamlet shows us, can be worse even than death.

Works Cited

Newell, Alex. “The Dramatic Context and Meaning of Hamlet’s ‘To Be or Not to Be’

Soliloquy.” PMLA, vol. 80, no. 1, Modern Language Association, 1965, pp. 38–50,

https://doi.org/10.2307/461124

Petronella, Vincent F. “Hamlet’s ‘To Be or Not to Be’ Soliloquy: Once More Unto the Breach.” Studies in Philology, vol. 71, no. 1, University of North Carolina Press, 1974, pp. 72–88, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4173832.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, edited by A.R Braunmuller, Penguin, 1957