0
Who said Whether its nobler of the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or by taking arms end them?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
A actor or Shakespeare said it 1st in a play called Hamlet by a actor playing Hamlet.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who speaks the first line of the play in Hamlet?
I am assuming that you are asking for the second line of Hamlet's famous soliloquy and not the second line in the play. Here are the first five lines of the monologue: To be, or not to be--that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortuneOr to take arms against a sea of troublesAnd by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--
What is hamlet trying to decide in his to be or not to be sililoquy?
*soliloquy And he's deciding whether or not it is noble to end his own life "whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer" etc. By "to be" or not, he essentially means "to live, or not to live".
What is meant by the whether clause in Hamlet's To be or not to be speech?
　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.
What is hamlet asking in the lines 'whether 'tis nobler opposing end them' that follow 'to be or not to be that is the question'?
Hamlet is asking for the people who are objecting the proposal raised.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.
What is Hamlets suggestion of suicide in the play Hamlet?
Well there are so many speeches where he talks about suicide. All of his monologues discuss it."to be or not to be, that is the question"To be, or not to be--that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortuneOr to take arms against a sea of troublesAnd by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--No more--and by a sleep to say we endThe heartache, and the thousand natural shocksThat flesh is heir to.He talks about depression here and how he wishes to die.O that this too too solid flesh would melt,Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew!Or that the Everlasting had not fix'dHis canon 'gainst self-slaughter! O God! God!How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitableSeem to me all the uses of this world!
Can you start a sentence with to be?
Shakespear did: 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. So i guess it is ok
How many plays and passages did shakespeare write?
He wrote 37 plays that nearly everyone agrees on, and another which most people agree he co-wrote with John Fletcher. Plus there are two plays for sure we know about which are now lost. That makes 40 that we know of. There might be more. A "passage" usually means a part or section of some work or other. "To be or not to be" is a passage, and so is "to be or not to be, that is the question", and so is "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" and so is "nobler in the mind" and also "slings and arrows" and "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." Since this one little speech from Hamlet can obviously be divided into hundreds of "passages" and there are thousands of such speeches not even counting the poetry Shakespeare wrote, I think it's safe to say that the number of passages he wrote is countless.
How many plays did Shakespeare and write?
He wrote 37 plays that nearly everyone agrees on, and another which most people agree he co-wrote with John Fletcher. Plus there are two plays for sure we know about which are now lost. That makes 40 that we know of. There might be more. A "passage" usually means a part or section of some work or other. "To be or not to be" is a passage, and so is "to be or not to be, that is the question", and so is "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" and so is "nobler in the mind" and also "slings and arrows" and "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." Since this one little speech from Hamlet can obviously be divided into hundreds of "passages" and there are thousands of such speeches not even counting the poetry Shakespeare wrote, I think it's safe to say that the number of passages he wrote is countless.
Can you give me a short character impersonation script?
Sure, here is a short character impersonation script: "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." - Hamlet
Who speaks the first line of the play in Hamlet?
I am assuming that you are asking for the second line of Hamlet's famous soliloquy and not the second line in the play. Here are the first five lines of the monologue: To be, or not to be--that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortuneOr to take arms against a sea of troublesAnd by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--
Comparative asuperlative. Is it noble nobler noblest?
The comparative form of "noble" is "nobler" and the superlative form is "noblest."
What does He who will not reason is a bigot he who cannot is a fool and he who dares not is a slave Mean?
Unreasonable people tend to be bigots and fools are incapable of reasoning, thus if he is neither a bigot nor a fool and still refuses to reason then he is a slave to the mystics and dogmatist who appeal to his base emotions. To me, this quote means that if one refuses to be reason(ale),then one is a bigot; if one is unreasonable due to incapacity, then one is a fool (too stupid to think ); and if one fears to be reasonable then one is bound to the circumstances like a slave; unable to act freely or independently. In other words, "To be, or not to be. That is, the question whether 'tis nobler n the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune; or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing them." allegedly written by W Shakespeare.
What is hamlet trying to decide in his to be or not to be sililoquy?
*soliloquy And he's deciding whether or not it is noble to end his own life "whether tis nobler in the mind to suffer" etc. By "to be" or not, he essentially means "to live, or not to live".
What is the comparative and superlative of noble?
nobler, noblest
Who was the nobler brother lakshman or bharat?
lakshman
What is meant by the whether clause in Hamlet's To be or not to be speech?
　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.
What is the comparative and superlative word for noble?
nobler, noblest
