What is meant by the whether clause in Hamlet's To be or not to be speech?

Answer 1

　The other day I read To be or not to be (Shakespeare) -From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2012 / 05 / 23) which I had happened to print out. It says in Interpretation that the third main point of disagreement about this speech is what the apparent theme of endurance vs. action (" to suffer..or..take arms ") has to do with being and nonbeing, and is further elaborated as follows, "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer...Or to take arms…" seems clearly to ask whether it is better to be stoically passive to life's troubles or heroically active against them. The trouble is how this relates to 'to be or not to be' ...

There is a considerable disagreement over the very question presented here in Interpretation ( how the theme of the whether clause relates to 'to be or not to be'), and I do not think that this quite reasonable question is attached as much importance as it should be.

The following is my interpretation of the first few lines of Hamlet's famous "to be or not to be" soliloquy, (To be, or not to be: that is the question:/ Whether 'tis nobler ~/And by opposing end them? [ To die: to sleep; / No more;]).

I would appreciate it very much if I could have any comments on it.

First of all, I assume that 'to be' means 'to live, to exist, to be alive, or to continue to exist' and 'not to be' 'to die, to cease to exist, or to commit suicide' and that in this soliloquy Hamlet uses 'to be' to allude to life and action and 'not to be' to death and inaction, though he is not talking directly about himself and thinking more generally about life or death; and I discuss the question on the premise that this assumption is correct.

The whether clause, which is most probably an amplification, seems generally thought to have much the same meaning as a common Japanese translation of this part: 'Which is nobler, to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?' But it is unreasonable and I do not agree, because 'To be, or not to be: that is the question.' and 'Whether 'tis nobler ~to suffer ~ , or to take ~?' are then two different questions that have different meanings, and the whether clause does not function as a consistent elaboration on the question of whether to continue to exist or not. I will give a supplementary explanation below.

In my judgment, the "or" in line 1 does not parallel the "or" in line 4, and to suffer ~ and to take ~ are two contrasting examples used to explain 'to be', and there is little doubt that Hamlet uses 'to be' to allude to life and action and 'not to be' to death and inaction (like killing himself with a bare dagger)(ll.20-21).　 'Not to be' does not imply life and action as some think it does, much less heroic action (like taking arms ~and end them)(ll.4-5); it means death without doing anything.

Besides, as is clearly shown by a certain Japanese translation ( Which way of life is nobler, to suffer ~, or to take arms ~ ? ), to suffer ~ and to take arms ~ are both ways of life -courses of action open for Hamlet in his present difficult situation, though noticeably different from each other, stoically passive vs. heroically active. Thus the question of whether to continue to exist or not is again totally different from the question of which is nobler of the two ways of living - two courses of action; there is no logical connection between the two.

My (grammatical) interpretation of the whether clause is as follows.　Although the pronoun 'it' in 'tis indicates to suffer ~ and to take arms ~ , the whole clause does not mean 'Which is nobler, to suffer ~ , or to take arms ~?' It means 'Is to be nobler (than not to be)?', that is to say, ' Is to suffer ~, or to take arms ~ ( no matter which ) really nobler ( than to die )?' Taken literally, 'to take arms ~' obviously implies life and action, and that heroic action, ("though perhaps with the loss of life") and does not equal 'not to be' as some think it does. So the equivalence is between 'to be' and 'to suffer ~, or to take arms ~' and between 'not to be' and 'To die' (l.5), which is the other alternative not expressed but understood in the whether clause. Thus I do not think, as some do, that Hamlet, without any sort of transition, suddenly starts to contemplate death. He merely begins to talk about the other alternative of nonbeing after talking about the alternative of being; and therefore the whether clause and 'To die: to sleep; / No more;' fit together well and logically and they form a united whole.

　 I think this is the only way to make the whether clause a more consistent elaboration on the question of whether to continue to exist or not, and that "Shakespearean grammar" would permit this explanation.

Answer 2

At this point of the play, Hamlet is considering whether or not he should commit suicide.