The not quite nihilistic question To be or not to be

Shakespeare1

To be, or not to be, that is the Question:: Whether ’tis Nobler in the minde to suffer
The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,
Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to dye, to sleepe
No more; and by a sleepe, to say we end
The Heart-ake, and the thousand Naturall shockes
That Flesh is heyre too? ‘Tis a consummation
Deuoutly to be wish’d. To dye to sleepe,
To sleepe, perchance to Dreame; I, there’s the rub,
For in that sleepe of death, what dreames may come,
When we haue shuffel’d off this mortall coile,
Must giue vs pawse. There’s the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life.

These are the first few lines from the First Folio of Hamlet, though in the Folio f is used as s. I changed it for modern readers.

To say Hamlet is depressed is an understatement. He is clearly questioning the futility of living. But though he says dye twice and death once, there are some scholars who suggest he is in no way suicidal; that this musing is just that, musing. And though we could ask them to explain Hamlet’s sudden interest in death, we won’t, because the only person who could definitely answer that is Shakespeare, and he’s been in that “undiscovered country” for four hundred years.

I’ve been thinking about this soliloquy a lot this week. Tomorrow I have the privilege of seeing Benedict Cumberbatch take on the role of Hamlet in a one-night only showing of the play, broadcast live around the world. That alone would make any Shakespeare scholar revisit the melancholic prince of Elsinore, but it is the passing of two people this week that brought about my contemplation of Hamlet’s words. I take stock of my life and my role as an active player. Death always makes me think about life and what it means to be.

What if, like some scholars suggest, we look to the words not as literal statements but as metaphors on how we should live? What if we took these words and asked, Do we live life to the fullest or do we close ourselves off to the word and live in our own dream world?

To be. To be actively engaged with the world: to be in love, to be happy, to be content. These are states that we all long for, yet for many of us, they are never achieved. Why? What makes it so hard for many of us to be in our desired states? When we look inward and ask ourselves this simple question, we find the answer in the next few lines.

Whether ’tis Nobler in the minde to suffer
The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,
Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to dye, to sleepe

For many of us, the fear of living; the fear having to suffer life’s slings and arrows is too much, so we oppose them by disengaging. Thus we end them. But yet we dream about the life we would want. Oh, if only life would stop hurting us!

Ahh, now there’s the rub; The Heart-ake, and the thousand Naturall shockes
That Flesh is heyre too.

We close ourselves off, never attempting to be, because of our fears. Fear of heartache, rejection, failure and all of the other emotional shocks we fleshy humans are prone to. It is fear of living that stops us from being.

Many of us, including myself, allow ourselves to hover between being and not being because of this fear. We fear if we try we will fail. We fear we will be rejected, we feel if we try we will suffer wounds and natural shocks that come from being.

‘Tis a consummation
Deuoutly to be wish’d. To dye to sleepe,
To sleepe, perchance to Dreame; I, there’s the rub,
For in that sleepe of death, what dreames may come,
When we haue shuffel’d off this mortall coile,
Must giue vs pawse. There’s the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life

Yes, we wouldn’t be asking the question if we could simply cut ourselves off. Ahh, there’s a second rub; for in closing ourselves off and living in our own dream world the dreams that come resemble life. This gives us pause. For in giving up on life we continue to dream about it, and thus, our non-lives can seem long and full of misfortune, or missed fortunes because we dare only dream.

So what is the answer? Do we be or not be? And even if we chose not be, isn’t that a state of being?

The answer as I see it is yes, it is better to be, or at least to be engaged as much as possible. As much as life hurts and can sometimes seem like sheer calamity, ’tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrowes of outragious fortune. For when it comes time to truly shuffel’d off this mortall coile, I want to go out knowing I loved, l tried, that I lived the best life possible. Fear is a poison whose cup I will not drink from anymore.

Cowards die many times before their deaths.

First Folio

Hamlet

Julius Caesar

Shakespeare as a stoner? All smoke & no substance

Were herbs to blame for this play?
Were herbs to blame for this play?

By now you’ve undoubtedly have heard the news: Pipes from Shakespeare’s property have been found to contain cannabis! Shakespeare was a stoner! If you haven’t heard, here’s a snippet from the Telegraph:

South African scientists have discovered that 400-year-old tobacco pipes excavated from the garden of William Shakespeare contained cannabis, suggesting the playwright might have written some of his famous works while high. Residue from early 17th century clay pipes found in the playwright’s garden, and elsewhere in Stratford-Upon-Avon, were analyzed in Pretoria using a sophisticated technique called gas chromatography mass spectrometry, the Independent reports. Of the 24 fragments of pipe loaned from the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to University of the Witwatersrand, cannabis was found in eight samples, four of which came from Shakespeare’s property.

The author of the piece goes on to suggest Shakespeare must have smoked weed while writing his plays. She even finds “evidence” in sonnet 76.

Why is my verse so barren of new pride?
So far from variation or quick change?
Why with the time do I not glance aside
To new-found methods and to compounds strange? (She seems to think he is talking about cocaine)
Why write I still all one, ever the same,
And keep invention in a noted weed,(Ah, he must be high on weed!)
That every word doth almost tell my name,
Showing their birth and where they did proceed?
O, know, sweet love, I always write of you,
And you and love are still my argument;
So all my best is dressing old words new,
Spending again what is already spent:
For as the sun is daily new and old,
So is my love still telling what is told.

I will admit the line about “noted weed” is unclear, but I don’t see what she sees. I read a sonnet about the poet’s answer to those who question his writing skills, and possibly a charge of repurposing older works. He retorts back, “From time to time, don’t I look for new methods and strange (different/ new) compounds”? Shakespeare is suggesting his work is fresh, even as his themes are old. Love is an old theme, yet he ‘dresses old words new”. Shakespeare compares the sun to his work; each day the same sun comes up, yet each day is new. Doesn’t sound like a guy who is high or talking about getting high. Sounds more like a man who doesn’t take criticism lying down. The author of the Telegraph piece may have tried a little too hard to prove her point. Of course she is not the only one. Several “scholars’ have come forward with evidence hidden in the plays.

How about we talk about the pipes and the fact surrounding them. Let’s say the date of the cannabis is accurate, give or take just a few years. This makes the weed roughly 400 years old. Given that Shakespeare was born 450 years ago, we would have to assume that if they belonged to him ( and we don’t know that they did) this would mean he smoked weed in his fifties. Of course, this could also mean this was the last of his weed, and maybe he’d been smoking the stuff for most of his adult life. Maybe… But…

Just because the pipes were found on Shakespeare’s property, doesn’t mean they were his pipes. Here is what we do know, or at least have been told:

The study, published in the South African Journal of Science, examined 24 pipe fragments from the town of Stratford-Upon-Avon, where Shakespeare lived. Some had been excavated from Shakespeare’s garden. Using advanced gas chromatography methods, researchers detected cannabis on eight fragments — four of which were confirmed as from the Bard’s garden, the Telegraph reports. Evidence of Peruvian cocaine was found on two others, though they were not from the same property. Times

Okay, so some pipes, (obviously not ones that anyone treasured, why else be tossed?), were found in Shakespeare’s garden. Humm.. Who else lived at Stratford? Ah, yes, Anne his wife, his two daughters, and after his death, one of his son-in-laws. Could the pipes belong to one of them? How about servants or farm hands? Could they have smoked weed out of cheap, easily discarded clay pipes? How about friends? What if Shakespeare held parties (he did have the biggest estate in the area, I bet he held a lot of parties) and had friends who smoked weed from time to time? How about neighboring teenagers? Today’s teens spend hours looking for a safe, undetected place to smoke some pot. Could the same be true of 16th century teens? Shakespeare’s large garden may have attracted silent late night visitors looking to get high. Perhaps they were caught and threw the pipes down as they tried to maintain some semblance of innocence (okay, that was me and two friends once. Sorry, I digress). But the point its, it could have happened.

All of the suspects listed above are based purely on conjecture. Just as is the suggestion that Shakespeare smoked and wrote about weed. Once again we are faced with a few facts taken widely out of context. We don’t know who threw the pipes in the garden or if they were thrown in the garden at all.

Here’s another idea. What if Shakespeare ordered some soil for his garden? He may have asked a local farmer for some fertilizer. What if a cart full of soil, which just happened to contain discarded pipes, happened to find its way into Shakespeare’s garden? Considering 16th century society had little regard for where their rubbish landed, it shouldn’t be hard to image that carts of garden soil might contain refuse. Once again, this is conjecture, oh, but it’s fun to speculate!

Shakespeare at Tobacco Factory As You Like It by William Shakespeare Directed by Andrew Hilton  Cast  Orlando                            Jack Wharrier Adam                               Paul Nicholson Oliver                               Matthew Thomas Charles & William             Peter Basham Celia                                 Daisy May Rosalind                            Dorothea Myer-Bennett Touchstone                       Vic Llewellyn Le Beau & Martext             Vincenzo Pellegrino Dukes Frederick & Senior   Christopher Bianchi Amiens                              Offue Okegbe Corin                                  Alan Coveney Silvius                                Ben Tolley Jaques                               Paul Currier Audrey                               Hannah Lee Phebe                                Sophie Whittaker Production Director                           Andrew Hilton Assistant Director          Nicholas Finegan Designer                         Harriet de Winton Music                               Elizabeth Purnell
Shakespeare at Tobacco Factory
As You Like It

But none of my ideas are any less credible than thinking these pipes are the smoking gun (or, smoking pipe) evidence that Shakespeare was high while he wrote. And if he did, who cares? It’s the work that matters, not how he achieved it. Come to think of it, a very high Shakespeare could explain a lot of silly, loose plots, it could certainly explain Dogberry or Touchstone. The point is, we have no facts to back up these claims, only a lot of questions. Whose pipes were these, why were they found discarded, and most importantly, does it matter?

Until we find 400 year old pipes with Shakespeare initials on them, or an ode to weed, written by him, I will withhold judgment. There are too many characters in this drama that had the means and motive to smoke cannabis. Living in 16th century plague ridden, garbage infested England would make anyone want to get high.

It drives me nuts when new “evidence” brings out wanna-be Sherlocks, who think they can deduce something concrete about Shakespeare. Just because he used the words “weed” and “compounds strange” they point and claim proof Shakespeare was a stoner. Surly some of them must be high.

Amazing Waste

Repurposing Food and Reducing Waste

measurestillformeasure

Shakespeare, Classics, Theatre, Thoughts

Nerd Cactus

Quirky Intellect for the Discerning Nerd

Sillyverse

Stories of magic and mystery

Commonplace Fun Facts

Mind-Blowing Facts You Didn’t Know

Fictionophile

Fiction reviews, Bookblogger, Fiction book reviews, books, crime fiction, author interviews, mystery series, cover, love, bookish thoughts...

Patrick W. Marsh

monsters, monsters, everywhere

Shakespeare for Kids Books

Opening the door for kids to love Shakespeare and the classics

desperatelyseekingcymbeline

The 10-year Shakespeare New Year Resolution

Katzenworld

Welcome to the world of cats!

booksandopinions.com

The Book Reviews You Can Trust!

The Book Review Directory

For Readers and Writers

thelitcritguy

screams from the void

Author Adrienne Morris

Step Into the Past—Lose Yourself in the Story.

crafty theatre

ideas inspired by crafty characters

Critical Dispatches

Reports from my somewhat unusual life

The Nerd Nebula

The Nucleus of the Universe for all Nerd Hacks!