"To be or not to be": Hamlet's tragic flaw is NOT hesitation - and it matters!
0:00 Introduction
0:27 Hamlet's hesitation
1:36 Suicide
2:32 Revenge and the Bible
4:21 "To be or not to be" analysis
4:31 Lines 1-5
5:50 Lines 5-9
6:22 Lines 9-13
7:04 Lines 13-27
9:29 Lines 28-32
10:58 Hamlet's real tragic flaw
12:40 ...Why it matters
14:45 Life's more fun with Ano sensei!
As always, if you want subtitles in a language that is not listed, just let me know and I will add them.
So I watched your video with as open a mind as I could but I’m afraid that while I agree ‘To be or not to be…’ is not Hamlet literally contemplating suicide – it’s not even a soliloquy because Ophelia is onstage and Polonius and Claudius are also onstage though hiding from Hamlet – this is not a speech about whether he should take justice into his own hands. I think the interpretation you offer is flawed as it’s based on ignoring parts of the text both within this speech and at other points throughout the play.
When someone weighs up two alternatives – “Should I go with option A or option B?” – I don’t think they then expand on those two points in a different order. Hamlet says “To be,” first and then “Not to be”. Why would he then go into detail about the second option first? It’s not impossible that a person might do this, but it is inelegant and Hamlet is such a clever and erudite character that it seems weird he would do this.
Why would his father’s ghost trick him into doing something that leads to the deaths of lots of people? The ghost makes it clear he wants to see justice for his death and tells Hamlet what that would look like. The witches in Macbeth are clearly creatures that mean ill so it makes sense there that they get the titular character to do bad things (though they do so by playing on his ambition, so how much he’s actually tricked is up for debate) but the ghost literally intercedes when Hamlet seems about to go too far and try to kill Gertrude, the one person the ghost made clear Hamlet should not harm:
“Against thy mother aught; leave her to heaven.”
[A.1, Sc.5, l.86]
The point you make that ‘To be or not to be…’ is a repetition of his considering suicide in Act 1, scene 2 is frankly not true. In that earlier scene, Hamlet is merely saying the equivalent of “I wish I would die!” simply as an exclamation of his frustration which he goes on to explain as being about his mother remarrying so soon after his father’s death:
“Within a month,
Ere yet the salt of most unrightious tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
She married.”
[A.1, Sc.2, ll.153-156]
I also find it hard to believe you when you say “There’s nothing in those opening lines that makes me think they’re about suicide.” Seriously? You’re saying you honestly can’t see those first few lines as being those of someone talking about self-destruction, even if you personally don’t believe that to be the case? After the lines that you are referring to, Hamlet immediately goes on to say:
“To die, to sleep,”
[A.3, Sc.1, l.60]
If you decide only to look at certain lines and ignore those that immediately follow just so you can interpret them in a particular way to suit your argument then I think you’re being disingenuous.
Hamlet is talking about suicide with this speech for one reason, which is that he’s been summoned to this part of the castle, as Claudius explains earlier in the same scene to Gertrude:
“For we have closely sent for Hamlet hither,
That he, as ‘t’were by accident, may here,
Affront Ophelia,”
[A3, Sc.1, ll.29-31]
Hamlet enters this scene expecting to meet someone and so he has to wear his “antic disposition,” [A1. Sc.5, l.172] as everyone but Horatio thinks he’s mad. When we first meet him in the play he’s wearing black and giving “These mourning duties to your father,” [A.1, Sc.2, l.88], so it seems perfectly reasonable that he would take up an antic disposition of depression, so ‘To be or not to be…’ makes absolute sense as he wants to come across as if he’s wondering whether to live or die.
You also make a point that suicide can’t be an “enterprise of great pith and moment”. But why not when Hamlet views it as being the sensible response in the face of the “whips and scorns of time…” and it’s only that he doesn’t know what lies on the other side of death that prevents him from facing it? It doesn’t matter whether you or I believe suicide is an enterprise of great pith, etc.; it matters only that Hamlet views it as such. (Except he doesn’t really because, as I’ve already said, he’s not really suicidal and he has seen a glimpse of what lies beyond death in the form of his father’s ghost.)
You later mention that Hamlet says in Act 1, Scene 2 to Gertrude “I know not seems,” as if he’s already at that point plotting his revenge and putting on a pretence of madness, when in fact none of that has happened yet cos he hasn’t even heard about the ghost from Horatio. His reference to “seems” is that he has all the visible actions of grief about him, such as wearing black, sighing, crying, etc., but he also has “that within which passes show.” [A1, Sc.2, l.85].
I’m all for alternative interpretations of texts and trying to find fresh angles on them, but one can only do this after fully reading and understanding every word of the text. Your reading here is, in my opinion, flawed beyond serious consideration as you even literally quote lines out of their narrative order and context (see my above point regarding “I know not seems”.)
I think you might consider reading the whole play through thoroughly and understand the actual plot before offering wild interpretations that are not supported by Shakespeare’s words, especially as, based on some of the comments below this video, people, including students, seem to think your views have real merit. They appear to me to be an obvious example of confirmation bias – you’ve decided what you think the speech is about and go on to present only those bits (some of which are inaccurate) that back you up.
There’s a lot to unpack here. Let’s start with the easy one. I disagree with your assertion that the speech is not a soliloquy. In Elizabethan drama, soliloquies are defined by the character’s belief that they are alone, regardless of whether others are physically present but concealed. Hamlet is speaking his thoughts aloud, unaware of being overheard, which fits the definition of a soliloquy as a dramatic device. This is widely accepted in both scholarly and theatrical circles.
I also disagree with your argument that “when someone weighs up two alternatives – ‘Should I go with option A or option B?’ – they don’t then expand on those two points in a different order.” In fact, this technique is well established in rhetoric and is known as “chiastic structure.” You’ll find examples throughout classical literature (Herodotus, Cicero, and others), and it occurs elsewhere in Shakespeare. For instance, in Julius Caesar, Brutus introduces a list of reasons for his actions (“As Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honour him; but, as he was ambitious, I slew him.”) and then addresses them in a different order, focusing on ambition first. Or just take these lines from The Clash:
This reversal is a recognized and effective rhetorical strategy.
I don’t see much point in reiterating all the reasons why I feel the speech is more about revenge than suicide, since I cover these thoroughly in the video. However, I will highlight a couple of points:
As I mention at the end of the video, I am not the first to offer this interpretation. I go through the speech line by line, paying close attention to Shakespeare’s words, so I don’t think “offering wild interpretations that are not supported by Shakespeare’s words” is a fair characterization of my approach. When I released the video, it sparked some very fruitful discussions with actors, scholars, teachers, and others – some of whom disagreed, as you do, but on the whole the response was positive. One such discussion can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6985533073803137024/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop.
Regarding “confirmation bias,” I have to disagree. I’ve lived with this play for over 55 years, and this is the perspective I’ve developed through long engagement. As I mention in the video, I took the time to search the entire Early English Books Online database for every use of the phrase “make one’s quietus” and its variants, and found no instance of it meaning suicide, other than (supposedly) in this speech. That is just one indication of my approach – to go into the issue from various angles seriously and in depth.
Given my long experience with the play, I found your suggestion that I “read the whole play through thoroughly and understand the actual plot” frankly patronising and inappropriate. If you wish to continue this discussion, I ask that you do so respectfully, focusing on the text and its interpretation, without making it personal.
As I say at the beginning of the video, you don’t have to agree with me, but I do ask that you listen to what I have to say. I feel that your own certainty that the standard interpretation is correct may have prevented you from engaging with my argument with an open mind. If I may make a suggestion of my own, perhaps you could have a copy of the speech open in front of you and watch the video again? That way, you can make an accurate judgement about whether or not I go through it line by line, looking at all the implications, before dismissing my argument.
@anosensei I’m sorry about the tone of my previous comment. I didn’t intend to be rude and patronising but I can see that it is in places and for that I apologise sincerely. I forgot myself and wrote without reviewing it from the perspective of how it might come across. I’m also sorry to anyone else who reads it and is upset in any way. There’s no call for rudeness and I apologise. I don’t want to be the person who ruins the fun and pleasure that comes from online discussion – this time I was that person and I will try harder not to be (no pun intended) in future with yourself and others.
What’s more, you’ve prompted me to comb through the whole issue again, and I realise there’s a potentially important matter I left out of the video. On returning to the stage after overhearing Hamlet, Claudius now sees fit to send Hamlet to England. The plan for Hamlet to be killed in England is only revealed later on, but it seems that, from this point on, Claudius perceives Hamlet as a threat. That wouldn’t entirely add up if Hamlet were merely talking about suicide, but it would make a lot of sense if he were talking (even if only in general terms) about revenge.
On the other hand, everything Hamlet says before addressing Ophelia is conventionally treated as “thinking out loud”, a kind of extended aside to the audience, and not audible to other characters. Does Claudius hear it or not?
Either way, thank you for prompting me to take another look at this!
@anosensei I’ve reread the play and thought about your points again. I will try to express them more respectfully this time.
I can see that much of the text does support your view of what ‘To be or not to be…’ is about. I think your most recent post about Claudius seeing Hamlet as a threat, hence his talk of sending him to England, makes sense within your interpretation. A lot of your other points also do make sense to me (I love The Clash quote to back up your point in your first reply btw!!).
I guess my point is that much of the play goes with what you’re saying and, in my personal opinion, if one were to stage it with certain cuts to the text and certain staging decisions are made – such as (if I’ve understood you correctly) having Hamlet not notice Ophelia when he enters for A.3 Sc.1, or maybe even having her go offstage altogether – then it would work.
For the sake of discussion, I will say that I still stand by my belief that ‘To be or not to be…’ is about suicide, though I honestly feel my view that he doesn’t actually mean it as he is performing in order to convince everyone he is mad and he is expecting to meet someone there in that scene (I think I explained all this in my first reply but I’m happy to expand if anyone reading this wants me to) is one that makes sense within the play as a whole. What I mean is – and I say this with respect – is that I personally feel to play ‘To be or not to be…’ as a sincere expression of contemplating suicide doesn’t make sense as he has no reason to be suicidal and it doesn’t work as an expression of his debating whether or not to kill Claudius. Just my opinion, of course.
I also stand by my (rudely made) point that there are lines of dialogue before this scene that I think go against your interpretation, such as what I said before about his reference to “self-slaughter” in Act 1 scene 2 not being a real contemplation of suicide and so ‘To be or not to be…’ isn’t a repetition. Again, I’m happy to go into that again if it isn’t clear and it’s just my opinion.
As for Claudius thinking of sending Hamlet to England, I think this is just a man who is convinced there is clearly something disturbing Hamlet (to be fair, he’s not wrong on that point!) but I think he’s just concerned because he’s essentially witnessed his nephew and member of the royal household assaulting (verbally and, depending on how one stages it, physically) Ophelia. I think for Claudius at this point in the play to realise that Hamlet is a danger undermines the later moment during The Mousetrap where he stands up and reveals himself to Hamlet as guilty while Hamlet simultaneously reveals he knows that truth about his father’s death. Both of their masks are ripped away at the same moment, which I think fits with the images of duality throughout the script.
Regarding what Hamlet says before he sees Ophelia (which is open to interpretation since one can have him notice Ophelia and ignore her so he can perform his suicidal thoughts for her to hear), I think Claudius and Polonius do hear what he says as they’re onstage (though hidden of course). It seems odd to me that they would hide themselves somewhere where they can’t hear him speaking.
I realise that essentially my interpretation is the conventional one (other than Hamlet not really meaning it when he debates suicide – I actually find most people are highly resistant to this idea. The only reason I can think of is that they are uncomfortable with one of the most famous speeches in English possibly being a performance by Hamlet rather than sincerely meant) but I think in this instance the conventional reading is the right one as it, as far as I can tell, makes sense of everything that is said and done before and after, as well as making thematic sense in a play that’s very much about theatre, acting and performing. There are a few points of yours that I personally feel do not fit with everything that is said and done by the characters, hence why I (respectfully) disagree.
I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying YOU ARE WRONG this time – I simply am explaining why I disagree with your eloquent argument as to what this speech is about. But I do like that at least this discussion has led to both of us going back to the text and engaging with it, which is the main reason for all this I guess.
I hope I have done this in a better manner than last time. 🙂
Great to look at things from other angles but I think this is a bit of a stretch. To be is the existential verb. Are you saying that its sense is incomplete, that it means to be willing to set aside vengeance (natural justice) in lieu of the divine judgement of the Everlasting? That to be or not to be is a pithy or dramatically foreshortened paraphrase of to seek vengeance or not to seek vengeance and that this is somehow “understood” due to its broader context? Hmm
Also, in any other literary artifact I could see why you argue if it’s said once why say it again but here it is a canny (modern?) appraisal of a mind oppressed by the chronic tedium of existence not by the intermittent fickleness of justice. Two common phrases are to commit suicide and to attempt suicide and attempted suicide can be psychological (Jesus applied this principle to adultery and other misdemeanors) as well as actual, and suicidal ideation isn’t usually a once off fugitive fantasy. Suicidal people are haunted by such thoughts and passively, hesitatingly repeat the psychological actions any number of times before, God forbid, committing.
As for why if you say something once why say it again, haven’t you read the first 17 sonnets?
“Ok ok I heard you the first time.. sheesh”
H. Wriothesley 😂
I think whichever way you look at it, the sense is incomplete. To our modern sensibilities it may appear more appropriate to suppose the speaker is talking about whether he himself is to be or not, but it may not have seemed so to audiences at the time.
We’ve reached a point where we are two hours or more into a revenge tragedy and all the supposed revenger has done is raise philosophical and moral objections. If the audience had gone to the Beargarden instead, they’d have had plenty of blood by this time. One can imagine cries of “Get on with it, mate!”
Given this “broader context”, the question of whether Hamlet is talking about whether he himself is to be or not to be or whether he’s talking about whether the promised revenge is to be or not to be is one that is, at least, worth considering.
But the main focus of the video is the more immediate context of the speech itself. It’s all about how – at the beginning of the speech – we either “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” (i.e., put up with all the indignities life heaps upon us) or “take arms against a sea of troubles” (i.e., fight back). The middle part of the speech tells us the only reason we don’t fight back (against “the Whips and Scorns of time, / The Oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely”, etc.) is that we are afraid of being sent to hell after we die. “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all” and “enterprises of great pitch and moment…lose the name of Action”.
To say that’s about suicide supposes that Shakespeare’s contemporary audiences would have seen suicide as “taking arms against a sea of troubles”, as an act of bravery and an enterprise of “great pith and moment”. For me, none of that rings true.
For me, one of the crucial points is the reference to making one’s “quietus”. I’ve checked the entire Early English Books Online database and in every case it refers to the settling (either literal or metaphorical) of debts. The circular logic whereby we say making one’s quietus means committing suicide because that’s how Shakespeare uses it in Hamlet’s soliloquy doesn’t convince me.
But, as I say at the beginning of the video, all I’m asking is that people hear me out, weigh up my analysis (which, after all, has been proposed by others and isn’t really mine) and make up their own minds. Literature, I always told my students, isn’t all about what the text _means_; it’s about what it means to _you_.
Oh my gosh this video is perfectly validating to me. Im in highschool and read Hamlet for the first time in class without knowing anything about it beforehand & when we got to this soliloquy I got to the same EXACT conclusions you’ve stated about what “to be” and “not to be” mean, mainly that, paradoxicallly, for hamlet to live is not to be & to kill is to be. (rather than the book annotation of to be as to live and not to be as to die).
I feel my interpretation justified vicariously through this video and its especially funny that my main gripe with Hamlet’s character and depiction in the book was this flat melodramatic repetition of suicidal ideation that, as you put it, is “so act 1 scene 2!”
This is such a great comment! The fact that there are high school students who care about this stuff – and who think about it deeply, as you clearly did – is the kind of thing that leaves me confident that the future is in very good hands and those who bemoan “the youth of today” are about as wrong as anyone ever could be. 🔥
I enjoyed your alternate explanation and it got me thinking. I do however support Stand Your Ground Laws in the USA in defending one’s life and family. Thank you for your video and opinions❤
Thank you for your comment. Most developed countries have moved away from people carrying weapons and defending themselves, and accepting that policing is the job of the police. Over time, that’s led to a general de-escalation of violence, and even criminals don’t carry weapons because they know the sentence will be much, much stiffer if they are caught.
The United States is pretty much the lone exception. Criminals carry guns, so non-criminals carry guns to protect themselves. I’m not sure what I would do personally if I were living in that kind of society, so I wouldn’t presume to judge what others do, but I do hope that the United States will find a way to de-escalate violence. The statistics are pretty alarming! https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/crime-in-the-usa
0:00 Introduction
0:27 Hamlet’s hesitation
1:36 Suicide
2:32 Revenge and the Bible
4:21 “To be or not to be” analysis
4:31 Lines 1-5
5:50 Lines 5-9
6:22 Lines 9-13
7:04 Lines 13-27
9:29 Lines 28-32
10:58 Hamlet’s real tragic flaw
12:40 Why it matters
14:45 Life’s more fun with Ano sensei!
If I have understood correctly, Hamlet is deciding whether it is to be that he will take revenge, risking damnation, or not. If “not,” then he’ll be powerless and suffer in this life but won’t have to bear the punishment afterwards. I grasp it better when I phrase it as: Is it to be, or is it not to be?
I’m surprised that so many performances go to the suicide interpretation. Surely most of the actors and directors whose Shakespeare we end up seeing have studied in some depth.
Thank you for this illuminating video. It certainly brightens up my life to learn new things.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I’ve only talked to two Shakespearean actors about this. One agrees with me entirely, while the other felt that actors have to play to the audience’s expectations and, since they’re overwhelmingly expecting “To be or not to be” to be a suicide speech, that is what they should get. Needless to say, I disagree!
The suicide interpretation seems to date back no further than A.C. Bradley’s _Shakespearean Tragedy_ (1904). We don’t really know how audiences, critics, directors and actors saw it prior to that. There have been a few voices raised in dissent, but the suicide interpretation, wrong though I believe it to be, has become the prevailing narrative.
I think, in context, Elizabethan audiences did see it as, essentially, “Is it to be, or is it not to be?” as you put it. The whole expectation of a revenge tragedy is that the protagonist takes revenge, and with all Hamlet’s dithering that must be the unspoken thought in everyone’s mind at this point.
@anosensei Thank you for this information. It’s interesting to hear about the actors’ thoughts.
Maybe it’s time for audiences to be educated. I think most people would find it more exciting to learn this “new” (old) interpretation — and have something to talk about — than simply to have their expectations met. And we all might find that Hamlet makes more sense.
I found your channel by following the link in your comment on a video showing 4 actors interpreting this soliloquy. I’m so glad I did and hope many others will, too.
@JTPFluteSynergy Thank you again for the feedback! Yes, my main interest is in making the videos, but I do try to put some effort into bringing them to people’s attention. After all, I made them to be watched! YouTube changed their algorithm a while back, making it harder for smaller channels like mine, but I do what I can. Thanks again!
@anosensei What fun! somehow I suspect your “amateurish” may beat my amateurish.
Thanks again for these videos. It has been too long since I’ve studied or read or learned, and this reminds me how important words and literature are to life: fragments to shore against our ruins.
Respectfully, I don’t think you make a good case for this soliloquy “not being about suicide.” It’s just all right there. Too self-evident to ignore. To say it isn’t about self-harm, you have to ignore whole couplets of the verse, or as you put it, consider them “tangents.”
Why, you ask, would he repeat himself? Ever heard of rumination? Intrusive thoughts? It’s a portrait of depression. He’s not done thinking about it, simple as that. And he literally expresses thoughts of “self-slaughter.” Sorry, it’s definitely about violence in this moment, and self-harm is explicitly *on the table* for this troubled young man.
I do think you have an interesting point that Hamlet’s tragic flaw is not “indecision” or “dithering” though. Personally, I think it’s better expressed as *cowardice.* He’s not *hesitant* to make a decision one way or the other, he’s *afraid* of taking on the responsibility of influencing the world — and — in literary terms OR in a 16th century historical mindset — as a noble, influence is his birthright. So his fear causes him to abdicate his moral responsibility — and as a result, his Denmark rots, and falls to ruinous chaos.
🧑🎓Yes, I have heard of rumination, thank you. “Respectfully”, why are you asking?
At this point in the play, Hamlet is excited because he has finally come up with a way (through the play within a play) to prove whether the ghost is telling the truth. He’s not the melancholy figure he was in his first soliloquy.
A lot hinges on the word “quietus”. There’s a kind of circular logic to saying that “to make one’s quietus” means “to commit suicide” because that’s how Shakespeare uses it in Hamlet. Yet you can search the entire corpus of early modern literature and not find one single example (other, of course, than this supposed usage of Shakespeare’s) of “quietus” used in this way.
Once one accepts that “to make one’s quietus” means “to settle one’s debts” it becomes much clearer.
I’m not sure what couplets you think have to be ignored to make this interpretation; I went through the entire speech, missing nothing out. And when I say that Hamlet seems to go off on a tangent, this is a standard rhetorical device. He comes right back to the point and ties the two thoughts together; we don’t take action in this world because we fear punishment in the next.
> he literally expresses thoughts of “self-slaughter.”
Yes, but not in this speech. That’s my whole point. He says that – and discards it as a possible course of action – in his first soliloquy.
> Sorry, it’s definitely about violence in this moment
No need to be sorry. I agree entirely! This is a revenge tragedy, and Hamlet is talking about the ethics of taking revenge. It’s definitely about violence.
We don’t know how early audiences responded to this speech, but the idea that it is about suicide doesn’t seem to go back any further than Bradley (_Shakespearean Tragedy_, 1904) and occasioned spirited debate over the following decades. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, but I feel that more is lost than gained by the wholesale acceptance of Bradley’s take at the expense of other perspectives. YMMV
i’ve always liked the idea that heminges and condell, cobbling many scripts together for publication, simply put the speech in the wrong place – the most striking version i have seen is benedict cumberbatch using the speech to convey despair and heartbreak at his father’s loss right at the beginning
@spatrick1441 Hmm, not impossible, I suppose, but the “bad quarto” of 1603, while it places the speech a bit differently, still locates it at a stage of the play when the suicide interpretation, to my mind, doesn’t really add up.
This is such a fantastic video, and is so incredibly clear – thank you so very much! As an English Literature A-Level student studying Hamlet, I will be sure to use this as an ‘alternative interpretations’ assesment objective, and credit you! I cannot wait to get to university to start discussing texts in more detail; wishing I could talk more about this in current essays! Thank you so much.
Thank you, Arabella! Others have argued along much the same lines as me, and you might like to take a look at papers published on this topic. If you have institutional access to JSTOR it will help, but you can get limited free access by registering, and some of the articles are also available on Academia.edu and ResearchGate.
This interpretation makes complete sense. It pays attention to the historical context of the times, something too often ignored. I’ve always thought an emphasis on suicide in the act 3 soliloquy was just a tad too “modern.” At what point, I wonder, did readers and/or scholars begin to interpret “to be or not to be” as an argument about committing suicide? Must say, your posts and interpretations are are very enriching, as well as, thought provoking. Thank you!
Thank you for your comment & question.Vincent F. Petronella, “Hamlet’s ‘To Be or Not to Be’ Soliloquy: Once More Unto the Breach”, _Studies in Philology_, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Jan., 1974), pp. 72-88, says:
The first prominent commentator to suggest that Hamlet is contemplating suicide in the “To be” soliloquy was A. C. Bradley. (P. 75)
He’s referring to Bradley’s _Shakespearean Tragedy_ (1904). There are two clear camps by the time N.B. Allen writes:
Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy … has divided scholars into two main groups. One takes the view that Hamlet is meditating on suicide; the other that he is thinking about struggling with the wrongs of life. (_The Shakespeare Association Bulletin_ , Vol. 13, No. 4 (October, 1938), pp. 195-207. P. 195)
So the suicide idea appears to have emerged in the early 20th century, and has become, in the popular mind, the “correct” interpretation. There continue to be dissenting voices in academic circles, but it’s a case of voices crying in the wilderness!
Does Ham- have schizophrenia, say until the graveyard scene. He, Lear, Macbeth can’t get out of their own heads….often sub-clinical symptom of schizophrenia. See Van Gogh’s biography for good case study + genius.
Psychoanalyzing fictional characters is always a dicey occupation. The word schizophrenia was coined in 1908, and the earliest detailed medical records of a probable schizophrenic date back to 1809. Shakespeare was living hundreds of years before this, in a society that basically perceived only two categories – sanity and madness.
Melancholy and grief were often perceived as a kind of slippery path to madness, and we see that with both Hamlet – who remains capable of interacting with others in the world around him – and Ophelia, who does not.
Hamlet becomes more reckless as the play goes on, first killing Polonius, then dispatching Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths, but I see that less as madness than as the erosion of Hamlet’s noble nature as he gets drawn deeper and deeper into the mire of revenge. We know he dissembles madness (putting on an “antic disposition”), but I don’t think Shakespeare intends his audience to perceive Hamlet as being, or becoming, really mad.
@anosensei Well, a few points: human nature and neurology hasn’t changed in eras measureed in eons, 400 yrs is trivial, in any medical condition; we know now what these symptoms are and the genetics, somewhat, similar to PTSD, autism, bi-polar, depression, etc; this is basic neurology and not Freudian/”psychoanalysis.”
S-speare , and the audience did not have to know what the medical condition was to see it’s symptoms and record them. They did not know what the plague was but the symptoms are/were universal – across thousands of years.
Do we not bring our greater biological, physiological, neurological, medical knowledge to bear on the human condition, as described in the past, eg, plague, smallpox, neurological conditions?
In addition, while having neither knowledge nor semantics for human neurological conditions, S-speare seems to have been such a keen observer that accurate descriptions, beyond sane/mad, for human behavior, seem to have been written out. Freud and early French neurologist did the same, perhaps Chaucer…etc….
@Kevin Kind Songs Yes, on the whole I accept the points you are making, although we do see differences in human behaviour over fairly short periods of time. For example, women in 18th- and 19th-century fiction – and, according to the records, in real life – regularly fainted when confronted with anything stressful or shocking, and people had bottles of smelling salts at hand to bring them round. Somehow, mysteriously, women stopped doing that by about the end of the 19th century!
My basic point, though, was in the first sentence of my reply – “Psychoanalyzing fictional characters is always a dicey occupation”. I do think psychological analysis can add to our understanding of literature, but I am wary of specific diagnoses such as you suggest, and in any case I am not qualified to make such a diagnosis with a flesh-and-blood person, much less with a fictional character so, when it comes down to it, I guess I’m really not the best person to ask.
The best I can do is point you to sources that might help. If you’re not already aware of them, you might want to take a look at the following: Theodore Lidz, _Hamlet’s Enemy: Madness and Myth in Hamlet_ (1976) or R.M. Youngson, _The Madness of Prince Hamlet_ (1999) or, more recently, Fathali M. Moghaddam, _Shakespeare and the Experimental Psychologist_ (2021).
These works are written by people with a background in medical psychology and you may get the answers you are looking for from them.
My final word, though, is that I see Hamlet as a mentally normal – if pretty depressed – person who becomes overwhelmed by the circumstances attendant on his plot for revenge. He is reckless, chaotic, even irrational, but my take on it is that he is not mad and only pretends to be so in order to allay Claudius’s suspicions.
@anosensei
The points really aren’t “mine” but garden variety neurology, not psychology or psychoanalysis.
What may be interesting is that S-speare, with keen observation and writing, may be describing what we now know is schizoid behaviors – including verbal behaviors. For example, “word salad” and some other behaviors. Remember Hamlet is written as a killer – in a similar manner to Romeo, Othello, etc. We could special plead by “accident” but believe all harm is claimed to be accidental, and perhaps most is…
We can track whether fictional characters’ behavior/speech is similar to real life. Even magical fantasy characters seem to need to stay somewhat similar, eg Harry Potter, the world’s religions.
Lol – oh “i” never look for “answers” in S-speare but only interesting questions….
@anosensei
I have tried to read – Shakespeare and the Experimental Psychologist (2021) and find it forced and a “hammer” nailing everything. I do try to keep up with the neurological research and would say much of that analysis is just badly wrong but – wrong, seems to sell so well…..
At school I had no interest in drama at all, as well as everyone else. 5 years ago I discovered the joy of the bard and 1 year ago I finally began to read(and write) poetry. My life is better for both, luckily Iv’e always been a lover of books, now i have the holy trinity of words.Your videos are brilliant keep them up.I’m 66 it’s never too late EH.
Thank you for the feedback! Yes, I get a lot of fun out of making these videos, and finding ways to make it enjoyable as well as instructive is a big part of that!
That was an incredible video John! I’m so happy to see Hamlet’s soliloquy interpreted without the suicide theme for once. I only hope a few English literature teachers watch this.
Thanks, Veronica! I’ve always felt the standard interpretation of that speech was not only wrong, but did a great disservice to Shakespeare’s abilities as a dramatist. I guess I’m a bit of a voice in the wilderness here, but I’d love to see the tide turn on this one!
Thank you for the feedback! I’ve got a few videos lined up that put Shakespeare in a slightly different perspective from the one we are used to. Stay tuned!
68 Comments
From Perth WA. Thanks for this. Brilliant. Totally agree.
Thanks for the thumbs up!
So I watched your video with as open a mind as I could but I’m afraid that while I agree ‘To be or not to be…’ is not Hamlet literally contemplating suicide – it’s not even a soliloquy because Ophelia is onstage and Polonius and Claudius are also onstage though hiding from Hamlet – this is not a speech about whether he should take justice into his own hands. I think the interpretation you offer is flawed as it’s based on ignoring parts of the text both within this speech and at other points throughout the play.
When someone weighs up two alternatives – “Should I go with option A or option B?” – I don’t think they then expand on those two points in a different order. Hamlet says “To be,” first and then “Not to be”. Why would he then go into detail about the second option first? It’s not impossible that a person might do this, but it is inelegant and Hamlet is such a clever and erudite character that it seems weird he would do this.
Why would his father’s ghost trick him into doing something that leads to the deaths of lots of people? The ghost makes it clear he wants to see justice for his death and tells Hamlet what that would look like. The witches in Macbeth are clearly creatures that mean ill so it makes sense there that they get the titular character to do bad things (though they do so by playing on his ambition, so how much he’s actually tricked is up for debate) but the ghost literally intercedes when Hamlet seems about to go too far and try to kill Gertrude, the one person the ghost made clear Hamlet should not harm:
“Against thy mother aught; leave her to heaven.”
[A.1, Sc.5, l.86]
The point you make that ‘To be or not to be…’ is a repetition of his considering suicide in Act 1, scene 2 is frankly not true. In that earlier scene, Hamlet is merely saying the equivalent of “I wish I would die!” simply as an exclamation of his frustration which he goes on to explain as being about his mother remarrying so soon after his father’s death:
“Within a month,
Ere yet the salt of most unrightious tears
Had left the flushing in her galled eyes,
She married.”
[A.1, Sc.2, ll.153-156]
I also find it hard to believe you when you say “There’s nothing in those opening lines that makes me think they’re about suicide.” Seriously? You’re saying you honestly can’t see those first few lines as being those of someone talking about self-destruction, even if you personally don’t believe that to be the case? After the lines that you are referring to, Hamlet immediately goes on to say:
“To die, to sleep,”
[A.3, Sc.1, l.60]
If you decide only to look at certain lines and ignore those that immediately follow just so you can interpret them in a particular way to suit your argument then I think you’re being disingenuous.
Hamlet is talking about suicide with this speech for one reason, which is that he’s been summoned to this part of the castle, as Claudius explains earlier in the same scene to Gertrude:
“For we have closely sent for Hamlet hither,
That he, as ‘t’were by accident, may here,
Affront Ophelia,”
[A3, Sc.1, ll.29-31]
Hamlet enters this scene expecting to meet someone and so he has to wear his “antic disposition,” [A1. Sc.5, l.172] as everyone but Horatio thinks he’s mad. When we first meet him in the play he’s wearing black and giving “These mourning duties to your father,” [A.1, Sc.2, l.88], so it seems perfectly reasonable that he would take up an antic disposition of depression, so ‘To be or not to be…’ makes absolute sense as he wants to come across as if he’s wondering whether to live or die.
You also make a point that suicide can’t be an “enterprise of great pith and moment”. But why not when Hamlet views it as being the sensible response in the face of the “whips and scorns of time…” and it’s only that he doesn’t know what lies on the other side of death that prevents him from facing it? It doesn’t matter whether you or I believe suicide is an enterprise of great pith, etc.; it matters only that Hamlet views it as such. (Except he doesn’t really because, as I’ve already said, he’s not really suicidal and he has seen a glimpse of what lies beyond death in the form of his father’s ghost.)
You later mention that Hamlet says in Act 1, Scene 2 to Gertrude “I know not seems,” as if he’s already at that point plotting his revenge and putting on a pretence of madness, when in fact none of that has happened yet cos he hasn’t even heard about the ghost from Horatio. His reference to “seems” is that he has all the visible actions of grief about him, such as wearing black, sighing, crying, etc., but he also has “that within which passes show.” [A1, Sc.2, l.85].
I’m all for alternative interpretations of texts and trying to find fresh angles on them, but one can only do this after fully reading and understanding every word of the text. Your reading here is, in my opinion, flawed beyond serious consideration as you even literally quote lines out of their narrative order and context (see my above point regarding “I know not seems”.)
I think you might consider reading the whole play through thoroughly and understand the actual plot before offering wild interpretations that are not supported by Shakespeare’s words, especially as, based on some of the comments below this video, people, including students, seem to think your views have real merit. They appear to me to be an obvious example of confirmation bias – you’ve decided what you think the speech is about and go on to present only those bits (some of which are inaccurate) that back you up.
READ THE TEXT, EVERYONE!!!
Having said all that, I wish you well. 🙂
There’s a lot to unpack here. Let’s start with the easy one. I disagree with your assertion that the speech is not a soliloquy. In Elizabethan drama, soliloquies are defined by the character’s belief that they are alone, regardless of whether others are physically present but concealed. Hamlet is speaking his thoughts aloud, unaware of being overheard, which fits the definition of a soliloquy as a dramatic device. This is widely accepted in both scholarly and theatrical circles.
I also disagree with your argument that “when someone weighs up two alternatives – ‘Should I go with option A or option B?’ – they don’t then expand on those two points in a different order.” In fact, this technique is well established in rhetoric and is known as “chiastic structure.” You’ll find examples throughout classical literature (Herodotus, Cicero, and others), and it occurs elsewhere in Shakespeare. For instance, in Julius Caesar, Brutus introduces a list of reasons for his actions (“As Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honour him; but, as he was ambitious, I slew him.”) and then addresses them in a different order, focusing on ambition first. Or just take these lines from The Clash:
Should I stay, or should I go now?
Should I stay, or should I go now?
If I go, there will be trouble
And if I stay, it will be double
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMaE6toi4mk&ab_channel=theclashVEVO
This reversal is a recognized and effective rhetorical strategy.
I don’t see much point in reiterating all the reasons why I feel the speech is more about revenge than suicide, since I cover these thoroughly in the video. However, I will highlight a couple of points:
As I mention at the end of the video, I am not the first to offer this interpretation. I go through the speech line by line, paying close attention to Shakespeare’s words, so I don’t think “offering wild interpretations that are not supported by Shakespeare’s words” is a fair characterization of my approach. When I released the video, it sparked some very fruitful discussions with actors, scholars, teachers, and others – some of whom disagreed, as you do, but on the whole the response was positive. One such discussion can be found here: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6985533073803137024/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop.
Regarding “confirmation bias,” I have to disagree. I’ve lived with this play for over 55 years, and this is the perspective I’ve developed through long engagement. As I mention in the video, I took the time to search the entire Early English Books Online database for every use of the phrase “make one’s quietus” and its variants, and found no instance of it meaning suicide, other than (supposedly) in this speech. That is just one indication of my approach – to go into the issue from various angles seriously and in depth.
Given my long experience with the play, I found your suggestion that I “read the whole play through thoroughly and understand the actual plot” frankly patronising and inappropriate. If you wish to continue this discussion, I ask that you do so respectfully, focusing on the text and its interpretation, without making it personal.
As I say at the beginning of the video, you don’t have to agree with me, but I do ask that you listen to what I have to say. I feel that your own certainty that the standard interpretation is correct may have prevented you from engaging with my argument with an open mind. If I may make a suggestion of my own, perhaps you could have a copy of the speech open in front of you and watch the video again? That way, you can make an accurate judgement about whether or not I go through it line by line, looking at all the implications, before dismissing my argument.
@anosensei I’m sorry about the tone of my previous comment. I didn’t intend to be rude and patronising but I can see that it is in places and for that I apologise sincerely. I forgot myself and wrote without reviewing it from the perspective of how it might come across. I’m also sorry to anyone else who reads it and is upset in any way. There’s no call for rudeness and I apologise. I don’t want to be the person who ruins the fun and pleasure that comes from online discussion – this time I was that person and I will try harder not to be (no pun intended) in future with yourself and others.
@sashlestrob A handsome response – you are forgiven!
What’s more, you’ve prompted me to comb through the whole issue again, and I realise there’s a potentially important matter I left out of the video. On returning to the stage after overhearing Hamlet, Claudius now sees fit to send Hamlet to England. The plan for Hamlet to be killed in England is only revealed later on, but it seems that, from this point on, Claudius perceives Hamlet as a threat. That wouldn’t entirely add up if Hamlet were merely talking about suicide, but it would make a lot of sense if he were talking (even if only in general terms) about revenge.
On the other hand, everything Hamlet says before addressing Ophelia is conventionally treated as “thinking out loud”, a kind of extended aside to the audience, and not audible to other characters. Does Claudius hear it or not?
Either way, thank you for prompting me to take another look at this!
@anosensei I’ve reread the play and thought about your points again. I will try to express them more respectfully this time.
I can see that much of the text does support your view of what ‘To be or not to be…’ is about. I think your most recent post about Claudius seeing Hamlet as a threat, hence his talk of sending him to England, makes sense within your interpretation. A lot of your other points also do make sense to me (I love The Clash quote to back up your point in your first reply btw!!).
I guess my point is that much of the play goes with what you’re saying and, in my personal opinion, if one were to stage it with certain cuts to the text and certain staging decisions are made – such as (if I’ve understood you correctly) having Hamlet not notice Ophelia when he enters for A.3 Sc.1, or maybe even having her go offstage altogether – then it would work.
For the sake of discussion, I will say that I still stand by my belief that ‘To be or not to be…’ is about suicide, though I honestly feel my view that he doesn’t actually mean it as he is performing in order to convince everyone he is mad and he is expecting to meet someone there in that scene (I think I explained all this in my first reply but I’m happy to expand if anyone reading this wants me to) is one that makes sense within the play as a whole. What I mean is – and I say this with respect – is that I personally feel to play ‘To be or not to be…’ as a sincere expression of contemplating suicide doesn’t make sense as he has no reason to be suicidal and it doesn’t work as an expression of his debating whether or not to kill Claudius. Just my opinion, of course.
I also stand by my (rudely made) point that there are lines of dialogue before this scene that I think go against your interpretation, such as what I said before about his reference to “self-slaughter” in Act 1 scene 2 not being a real contemplation of suicide and so ‘To be or not to be…’ isn’t a repetition. Again, I’m happy to go into that again if it isn’t clear and it’s just my opinion.
As for Claudius thinking of sending Hamlet to England, I think this is just a man who is convinced there is clearly something disturbing Hamlet (to be fair, he’s not wrong on that point!) but I think he’s just concerned because he’s essentially witnessed his nephew and member of the royal household assaulting (verbally and, depending on how one stages it, physically) Ophelia. I think for Claudius at this point in the play to realise that Hamlet is a danger undermines the later moment during The Mousetrap where he stands up and reveals himself to Hamlet as guilty while Hamlet simultaneously reveals he knows that truth about his father’s death. Both of their masks are ripped away at the same moment, which I think fits with the images of duality throughout the script.
Regarding what Hamlet says before he sees Ophelia (which is open to interpretation since one can have him notice Ophelia and ignore her so he can perform his suicidal thoughts for her to hear), I think Claudius and Polonius do hear what he says as they’re onstage (though hidden of course). It seems odd to me that they would hide themselves somewhere where they can’t hear him speaking.
I realise that essentially my interpretation is the conventional one (other than Hamlet not really meaning it when he debates suicide – I actually find most people are highly resistant to this idea. The only reason I can think of is that they are uncomfortable with one of the most famous speeches in English possibly being a performance by Hamlet rather than sincerely meant) but I think in this instance the conventional reading is the right one as it, as far as I can tell, makes sense of everything that is said and done before and after, as well as making thematic sense in a play that’s very much about theatre, acting and performing. There are a few points of yours that I personally feel do not fit with everything that is said and done by the characters, hence why I (respectfully) disagree.
I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying YOU ARE WRONG this time – I simply am explaining why I disagree with your eloquent argument as to what this speech is about. But I do like that at least this discussion has led to both of us going back to the text and engaging with it, which is the main reason for all this I guess.
I hope I have done this in a better manner than last time. 🙂
Great to look at things from other angles but I think this is a bit of a stretch. To be is the existential verb. Are you saying that its sense is incomplete, that it means to be willing to set aside vengeance (natural justice) in lieu of the divine judgement of the Everlasting? That to be or not to be is a pithy or dramatically foreshortened paraphrase of to seek vengeance or not to seek vengeance and that this is somehow “understood” due to its broader context? Hmm
Also, in any other literary artifact I could see why you argue if it’s said once why say it again but here it is a canny (modern?) appraisal of a mind oppressed by the chronic tedium of existence not by the intermittent fickleness of justice. Two common phrases are to commit suicide and to attempt suicide and attempted suicide can be psychological (Jesus applied this principle to adultery and other misdemeanors) as well as actual, and suicidal ideation isn’t usually a once off fugitive fantasy. Suicidal people are haunted by such thoughts and passively, hesitatingly repeat the psychological actions any number of times before, God forbid, committing.
As for why if you say something once why say it again, haven’t you read the first 17 sonnets?
“Ok ok I heard you the first time.. sheesh”
H. Wriothesley 😂
I think whichever way you look at it, the sense is incomplete. To our modern sensibilities it may appear more appropriate to suppose the speaker is talking about whether he himself is to be or not, but it may not have seemed so to audiences at the time.
We’ve reached a point where we are two hours or more into a revenge tragedy and all the supposed revenger has done is raise philosophical and moral objections. If the audience had gone to the Beargarden instead, they’d have had plenty of blood by this time. One can imagine cries of “Get on with it, mate!”
Given this “broader context”, the question of whether Hamlet is talking about whether he himself is to be or not to be or whether he’s talking about whether the promised revenge is to be or not to be is one that is, at least, worth considering.
But the main focus of the video is the more immediate context of the speech itself. It’s all about how – at the beginning of the speech – we either “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” (i.e., put up with all the indignities life heaps upon us) or “take arms against a sea of troubles” (i.e., fight back). The middle part of the speech tells us the only reason we don’t fight back (against “the Whips and Scorns of time, / The Oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely”, etc.) is that we are afraid of being sent to hell after we die. “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all” and “enterprises of great pitch and moment…lose the name of Action”.
To say that’s about suicide supposes that Shakespeare’s contemporary audiences would have seen suicide as “taking arms against a sea of troubles”, as an act of bravery and an enterprise of “great pith and moment”. For me, none of that rings true.
For me, one of the crucial points is the reference to making one’s “quietus”. I’ve checked the entire Early English Books Online database and in every case it refers to the settling (either literal or metaphorical) of debts. The circular logic whereby we say making one’s quietus means committing suicide because that’s how Shakespeare uses it in Hamlet’s soliloquy doesn’t convince me.
But, as I say at the beginning of the video, all I’m asking is that people hear me out, weigh up my analysis (which, after all, has been proposed by others and isn’t really mine) and make up their own minds. Literature, I always told my students, isn’t all about what the text _means_; it’s about what it means to _you_.
Excellent!
Thank you!
Oh my gosh this video is perfectly validating to me. Im in highschool and read Hamlet for the first time in class without knowing anything about it beforehand & when we got to this soliloquy I got to the same EXACT conclusions you’ve stated about what “to be” and “not to be” mean, mainly that, paradoxicallly, for hamlet to live is not to be & to kill is to be. (rather than the book annotation of to be as to live and not to be as to die).
I feel my interpretation justified vicariously through this video and its especially funny that my main gripe with Hamlet’s character and depiction in the book was this flat melodramatic repetition of suicidal ideation that, as you put it, is “so act 1 scene 2!”
This is such a great comment! The fact that there are high school students who care about this stuff – and who think about it deeply, as you clearly did – is the kind of thing that leaves me confident that the future is in very good hands and those who bemoan “the youth of today” are about as wrong as anyone ever could be. 🔥
I enjoyed your alternate explanation and it got me thinking. I do however support Stand Your Ground Laws in the USA in defending one’s life and family. Thank you for your video and opinions❤
Thank you for your comment. Most developed countries have moved away from people carrying weapons and defending themselves, and accepting that policing is the job of the police. Over time, that’s led to a general de-escalation of violence, and even criminals don’t carry weapons because they know the sentence will be much, much stiffer if they are caught.
The United States is pretty much the lone exception. Criminals carry guns, so non-criminals carry guns to protect themselves. I’m not sure what I would do personally if I were living in that kind of society, so I wouldn’t presume to judge what others do, but I do hope that the United States will find a way to de-escalate violence. The statistics are pretty alarming!
https://inquisitivebird.substack.com/p/crime-in-the-usa
0:00 Introduction
0:27 Hamlet’s hesitation
1:36 Suicide
2:32 Revenge and the Bible
4:21 “To be or not to be” analysis
4:31 Lines 1-5
5:50 Lines 5-9
6:22 Lines 9-13
7:04 Lines 13-27
9:29 Lines 28-32
10:58 Hamlet’s real tragic flaw
12:40 Why it matters
14:45 Life’s more fun with Ano sensei!
If I have understood correctly, Hamlet is deciding whether it is to be that he will take revenge, risking damnation, or not. If “not,” then he’ll be powerless and suffer in this life but won’t have to bear the punishment afterwards. I grasp it better when I phrase it as: Is it to be, or is it not to be?
I’m surprised that so many performances go to the suicide interpretation. Surely most of the actors and directors whose Shakespeare we end up seeing have studied in some depth.
Thank you for this illuminating video. It certainly brightens up my life to learn new things.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I’ve only talked to two Shakespearean actors about this. One agrees with me entirely, while the other felt that actors have to play to the audience’s expectations and, since they’re overwhelmingly expecting “To be or not to be” to be a suicide speech, that is what they should get. Needless to say, I disagree!
The suicide interpretation seems to date back no further than A.C. Bradley’s _Shakespearean Tragedy_ (1904). We don’t really know how audiences, critics, directors and actors saw it prior to that. There have been a few voices raised in dissent, but the suicide interpretation, wrong though I believe it to be, has become the prevailing narrative.
I think, in context, Elizabethan audiences did see it as, essentially, “Is it to be, or is it not to be?” as you put it. The whole expectation of a revenge tragedy is that the protagonist takes revenge, and with all Hamlet’s dithering that must be the unspoken thought in everyone’s mind at this point.
@anosensei Thank you for this information. It’s interesting to hear about the actors’ thoughts.
Maybe it’s time for audiences to be educated. I think most people would find it more exciting to learn this “new” (old) interpretation — and have something to talk about — than simply to have their expectations met. And we all might find that Hamlet makes more sense.
I found your channel by following the link in your comment on a video showing 4 actors interpreting this soliloquy. I’m so glad I did and hope many others will, too.
@JTPFluteSynergy Thank you again for the feedback! Yes, my main interest is in making the videos, but I do try to put some effort into bringing them to people’s attention. After all, I made them to be watched! YouTube changed their algorithm a while back, making it harder for smaller channels like mine, but I do what I can. Thanks again!
Oh, you’re a flute player! I play the flute (in an amateurish sort of way)!
@anosensei What fun! somehow I suspect your “amateurish” may beat my amateurish.
Thanks again for these videos. It has been too long since I’ve studied or read or learned, and this reminds me how important words and literature are to life: fragments to shore against our ruins.
Excellent well explained enjoyed your explanation thank you so much
Thanks for the thumbs-up!
Respectfully, I don’t think you make a good case for this soliloquy “not being about suicide.” It’s just all right there. Too self-evident to ignore. To say it isn’t about self-harm, you have to ignore whole couplets of the verse, or as you put it, consider them “tangents.”
Why, you ask, would he repeat himself? Ever heard of rumination? Intrusive thoughts? It’s a portrait of depression. He’s not done thinking about it, simple as that. And he literally expresses thoughts of “self-slaughter.” Sorry, it’s definitely about violence in this moment, and self-harm is explicitly *on the table* for this troubled young man.
I do think you have an interesting point that Hamlet’s tragic flaw is not “indecision” or “dithering” though. Personally, I think it’s better expressed as *cowardice.* He’s not *hesitant* to make a decision one way or the other, he’s *afraid* of taking on the responsibility of influencing the world — and — in literary terms OR in a 16th century historical mindset — as a noble, influence is his birthright. So his fear causes him to abdicate his moral responsibility — and as a result, his Denmark rots, and falls to ruinous chaos.
🧑🎓Yes, I have heard of rumination, thank you. “Respectfully”, why are you asking?
At this point in the play, Hamlet is excited because he has finally come up with a way (through the play within a play) to prove whether the ghost is telling the truth. He’s not the melancholy figure he was in his first soliloquy.
A lot hinges on the word “quietus”. There’s a kind of circular logic to saying that “to make one’s quietus” means “to commit suicide” because that’s how Shakespeare uses it in Hamlet. Yet you can search the entire corpus of early modern literature and not find one single example (other, of course, than this supposed usage of Shakespeare’s) of “quietus” used in this way.
Once one accepts that “to make one’s quietus” means “to settle one’s debts” it becomes much clearer.
I’m not sure what couplets you think have to be ignored to make this interpretation; I went through the entire speech, missing nothing out. And when I say that Hamlet seems to go off on a tangent, this is a standard rhetorical device. He comes right back to the point and ties the two thoughts together; we don’t take action in this world because we fear punishment in the next.
> he literally expresses thoughts of “self-slaughter.”
Yes, but not in this speech. That’s my whole point. He says that – and discards it as a possible course of action – in his first soliloquy.
> Sorry, it’s definitely about violence in this moment
No need to be sorry. I agree entirely! This is a revenge tragedy, and Hamlet is talking about the ethics of taking revenge. It’s definitely about violence.
We don’t know how early audiences responded to this speech, but the idea that it is about suicide doesn’t seem to go back any further than Bradley (_Shakespearean Tragedy_, 1904) and occasioned spirited debate over the following decades. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, but I feel that more is lost than gained by the wholesale acceptance of Bradley’s take at the expense of other perspectives. YMMV
If you are interested in this question, you may like the following discussions on LinkedIn:
https://tinyurl.com/2uvvm226
https://lnkd.in/gFCUEDHp
i’ve always liked the idea that heminges and condell, cobbling many scripts together for publication, simply put the speech in the wrong place – the most striking version i have seen is benedict cumberbatch using the speech to convey despair and heartbreak at his father’s loss right at the beginning
@spatrick1441 Hmm, not impossible, I suppose, but the “bad quarto” of 1603, while it places the speech a bit differently, still locates it at a stage of the play when the suicide interpretation, to my mind, doesn’t really add up.
This is such a fantastic video, and is so incredibly clear – thank you so very much! As an English Literature A-Level student studying Hamlet, I will be sure to use this as an ‘alternative interpretations’ assesment objective, and credit you! I cannot wait to get to university to start discussing texts in more detail; wishing I could talk more about this in current essays! Thank you so much.
Thank you, Arabella! Others have argued along much the same lines as me, and you might like to take a look at papers published on this topic. If you have institutional access to JSTOR it will help, but you can get limited free access by registering, and some of the articles are also available on Academia.edu and ResearchGate.
Quite a lively discussion developed on LinkedIn around this video, and you might find it useful to take a look at that as well. Here’s the link: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6998233119602475008/
@anosensei thank you very much, really kind of you!
This interpretation makes complete sense. It pays attention to the historical context of the times, something too often ignored. I’ve always thought an emphasis on suicide in the act 3 soliloquy was just a tad too “modern.” At what point, I wonder, did readers and/or scholars begin to interpret “to be or not to be” as an argument about committing suicide? Must say, your posts and interpretations are are very enriching, as well as, thought provoking. Thank you!
Thank you for your comment & question.Vincent F. Petronella, “Hamlet’s ‘To Be or Not to Be’ Soliloquy: Once More Unto the Breach”, _Studies in Philology_, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Jan., 1974), pp. 72-88, says:
The first prominent commentator to suggest that Hamlet is contemplating suicide in the “To be” soliloquy was A. C. Bradley. (P. 75)
He’s referring to Bradley’s _Shakespearean Tragedy_ (1904). There are two clear camps by the time N.B. Allen writes:
Hamlet’s “To be or not to be” soliloquy … has divided scholars into two main groups. One takes the view that Hamlet is meditating on suicide; the other that he is thinking about struggling with the wrongs of life. (_The Shakespeare Association Bulletin_ , Vol. 13, No. 4 (October, 1938), pp. 195-207. P. 195)
So the suicide idea appears to have emerged in the early 20th century, and has become, in the popular mind, the “correct” interpretation. There continue to be dissenting voices in academic circles, but it’s a case of voices crying in the wilderness!
A fruitful discussion on all this, which you may be interested in, developed on LinkedIn. Here’s the link: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6998233119602475008/
Does Ham- have schizophrenia, say until the graveyard scene. He, Lear, Macbeth can’t get out of their own heads….often sub-clinical symptom of schizophrenia. See Van Gogh’s biography for good case study + genius.
Psychoanalyzing fictional characters is always a dicey occupation. The word schizophrenia was coined in 1908, and the earliest detailed medical records of a probable schizophrenic date back to 1809. Shakespeare was living hundreds of years before this, in a society that basically perceived only two categories – sanity and madness.
Melancholy and grief were often perceived as a kind of slippery path to madness, and we see that with both Hamlet – who remains capable of interacting with others in the world around him – and Ophelia, who does not.
Hamlet becomes more reckless as the play goes on, first killing Polonius, then dispatching Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths, but I see that less as madness than as the erosion of Hamlet’s noble nature as he gets drawn deeper and deeper into the mire of revenge. We know he dissembles madness (putting on an “antic disposition”), but I don’t think Shakespeare intends his audience to perceive Hamlet as being, or becoming, really mad.
@anosensei Well, a few points: human nature and neurology hasn’t changed in eras measureed in eons, 400 yrs is trivial, in any medical condition; we know now what these symptoms are and the genetics, somewhat, similar to PTSD, autism, bi-polar, depression, etc; this is basic neurology and not Freudian/”psychoanalysis.”
S-speare , and the audience did not have to know what the medical condition was to see it’s symptoms and record them. They did not know what the plague was but the symptoms are/were universal – across thousands of years.
Do we not bring our greater biological, physiological, neurological, medical knowledge to bear on the human condition, as described in the past, eg, plague, smallpox, neurological conditions?
In addition, while having neither knowledge nor semantics for human neurological conditions, S-speare seems to have been such a keen observer that accurate descriptions, beyond sane/mad, for human behavior, seem to have been written out. Freud and early French neurologist did the same, perhaps Chaucer…etc….
@Kevin Kind Songs Yes, on the whole I accept the points you are making, although we do see differences in human behaviour over fairly short periods of time. For example, women in 18th- and 19th-century fiction – and, according to the records, in real life – regularly fainted when confronted with anything stressful or shocking, and people had bottles of smelling salts at hand to bring them round. Somehow, mysteriously, women stopped doing that by about the end of the 19th century!
My basic point, though, was in the first sentence of my reply – “Psychoanalyzing fictional characters is always a dicey occupation”. I do think psychological analysis can add to our understanding of literature, but I am wary of specific diagnoses such as you suggest, and in any case I am not qualified to make such a diagnosis with a flesh-and-blood person, much less with a fictional character so, when it comes down to it, I guess I’m really not the best person to ask.
The best I can do is point you to sources that might help. If you’re not already aware of them, you might want to take a look at the following: Theodore Lidz, _Hamlet’s Enemy: Madness and Myth in Hamlet_ (1976) or R.M. Youngson, _The Madness of Prince Hamlet_ (1999) or, more recently, Fathali M. Moghaddam, _Shakespeare and the Experimental Psychologist_ (2021).
These works are written by people with a background in medical psychology and you may get the answers you are looking for from them.
My final word, though, is that I see Hamlet as a mentally normal – if pretty depressed – person who becomes overwhelmed by the circumstances attendant on his plot for revenge. He is reckless, chaotic, even irrational, but my take on it is that he is not mad and only pretends to be so in order to allay Claudius’s suspicions.
@anosensei
The points really aren’t “mine” but garden variety neurology, not psychology or psychoanalysis.
What may be interesting is that S-speare, with keen observation and writing, may be describing what we now know is schizoid behaviors – including verbal behaviors. For example, “word salad” and some other behaviors. Remember Hamlet is written as a killer – in a similar manner to Romeo, Othello, etc. We could special plead by “accident” but believe all harm is claimed to be accidental, and perhaps most is…
We can track whether fictional characters’ behavior/speech is similar to real life. Even magical fantasy characters seem to need to stay somewhat similar, eg Harry Potter, the world’s religions.
Lol – oh “i” never look for “answers” in S-speare but only interesting questions….
@anosensei
I have tried to read – Shakespeare and the Experimental Psychologist (2021) and find it forced and a “hammer” nailing everything. I do try to keep up with the neurological research and would say much of that analysis is just badly wrong but – wrong, seems to sell so well…..
At school I had no interest in drama at all, as well as everyone else. 5 years ago I discovered the joy of the bard and 1 year ago I finally began to read(and write) poetry. My life is better for both, luckily Iv’e always been a lover of books, now i have the holy trinity of words.Your videos are brilliant keep them up.I’m 66 it’s never too late EH.
Thank you, MEE N BEE! I certainly hope you’re right about it never being too late. I’m pushing 70, so it’d better be true! 😊
Yeah I agree 👍🏻 well done
Thank you, Laura!
This is such a cool video! I love having a new angle to consider the soliloquy and the transition at 1:37 made me laugh. Thank you!!
Thank you for the feedback! Yes, I get a lot of fun out of making these videos, and finding ways to make it enjoyable as well as instructive is a big part of that!
That was an incredible video John! I’m so happy to see Hamlet’s soliloquy interpreted without the suicide theme for once. I only hope a few English literature teachers watch this.
Thanks, Veronica! I’ve always felt the standard interpretation of that speech was not only wrong, but did a great disservice to Shakespeare’s abilities as a dramatist. I guess I’m a bit of a voice in the wilderness here, but I’d love to see the tide turn on this one!
Well, I’m glad I discovered this on a lazy Saturday afternoon and learnt to see the soliloquy in a quite different way. Thank you!
Thank you for the feedback! I’ve got a few videos lined up that put Shakespeare in a slightly different perspective from the one we are used to. Stay tuned!
Waiting u and for other plays ✨
OK! This one goes live in three hours. I hope you enjoy it! In the meantime, here is my Shakespeare playlist: https://tinyurl.com/anoshakespeare
This video provoked a couple of lively discussions on LinkedIn, which you can follow here:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pauladrianfried_john-yamamoto-wilson-on-quietus-and-suicide-activity-6998233119602475008-WKLA/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6985533073803137024/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop