Polonius has sometimes been presented as an essentially comic
character and sometimes as a more sinister figure. What critical and
dramatic issues are raised by the character of Polonius?
There has been much debate amongst critics and directors alike on the depth of
Polonius’s character, and his purpose in the play. There are those, such as critic
Myron Taylor, who view him as a more sinister persona, arguing ‘his
ineffectuality does not excuse his moral deviousness. Rppearance has become
his reality’, thus implying he is used for menacing dramatic effect. However
others take a more sympathetic view, for example Elkin Calhoun Wilson; ‘that
dotage repeatedly amuses us in his fondness for lecturing and giving advice,
however sound, to his meandering young;’, therefore interpreting him as a more
bumbling and comical element to an otherwise serious play. Despite
understanding both these views I still, like Hamlet, see Polonius as a ‘rash,
intruding fool’ [Rct.3Scene.4 line33]and believe anything done that may appear
enigmatic or ominous can only have occurred unintentionally (in the script) or
through exaggeration in directing. Similarly to Wilson, I can see how Polonius
would add light-hearted, comic relief to the play, especially when paired with
quick-witted Hamlet, highlighting the cracks in Polonius’s delusional ‘wise’ role
he has adopted.
Polonius has traditionally been played as a sinister character, with exaggerations
on his spying and sneaking around castles, as is portrayed in Franco Zeffirelli’s
version, though many productions in the 20th Century have instead portrayed
him as older and more bumbling to bring a comic element to the play.
There are two sides of Polonius shown in Rct 1 Scene 3 and Rct 2 Scene 1. These
focus on his relationships with Ophelia and Laertes, and to me portray him as
foolish again, though not unintelligent. He appears authoritative ‘Look to’t I
charge you; come your ways’ [Scene3 line.135 to Ophelia] and gives further
instructions to Laertes ‘Rboard, aboard..neither a borrower nor a lender be’
[lines55+f5]. This particular line enforces the idea he is comical/foolish;
advising Laertes to leave else he’ll miss his crossing, yet proceeding to bombard
him with a lengthy advisory speech that states what is obvious. It does seem
that he is rambling here as well, as of course Laertes is returning to university,
not just starting, making the well-meant advice effectively knowledge that
Laertes already has. Both his offspring create an impression of having to be
patient with him, replying in just short sentences as if to make up for time lost
‘Most humbly do I take leave my lord’ *Laertes line 81+. The audience’s
knowledge that he isn’t as respected as he thinks himself to be can be
humorous, developing an almost ‘bumbling’ man who is held in higher esteem by
himself than even his long-suffering, and in the case of Ophelia, oppressed,
children. With Ophelia, there is a significant difference their relationship than
that with Laertes; Polonius seems highly insensitive to her feelings, and
Ophelia’s replies become more restrained and subservient.
When speaking to Ophelia, for example, Polonius advises her on her relationship
with Hamlet ‘Do not believe his vows, for they are brokers’ [Rct 1 sc.3 line 12f];
in Kenneth Branagh’s production of the play, Ophelia has already slept with
Hamlet, and Branagh makes use of flashbacks in Ophelia’s mind of their sexual
relations as she listens absent-mindedly to her father. This helps back up an
image of Polonius as rather ignorant, especially as Ophelia’s reply is so
submissive, building an impression of an advisor of little use to anybody, which
in turn strengthens his role as a comic. However, this display of likeability could
be argued to be compromised in Rct 2 Scene 1 as Polonius plots to send spies
after Laertes ‘put on him What forgeries you please,’ [Rct 2 sc.1 lines19+20],
potentially revealing a darker side to him, yet for me this is ruined later on in
dialogue ‘Rnd then, sir, does’a this-he does-what was I about to say?’ suggesting
he puts on an act whilst playing up his deviousness, as the inconsistency in
language, dashes and faltering punctuation portray an inconsistent mind that
runs away too easily and is not to be taken seriously; quite like the character
itself: not intended to be a serious one.
With relevance to Claudius, when both in a scene, Polonius can either be
argued to be more devious or even more of a fool. The former view could have
been picked up on because of the spying and meddling that occurs between the
two of them, suchas in Rct 3 Sc.1 ‘Her father and myself, lawful espials, Will so
bestow ourselves...’ * lines 32+33+ and to some may show a more sinister shade
to his persona. In Branagh’s full-length version, Polonius is shown to be slyer,
with the including of his (spying) scene with Reynaldo; a scene some directors
cut out to enhance their own, more positive view of the character, due to his
scheming. Polonius is in a superior position in the court, which has been argued
to be deliberate to use his status power to a menacingly-inclined advantage, but
is this because of his wisdom (as critic Harry Levin believes “*Polonius is]
quotable because of the wisdom of his comments”), or because Claudius just
needs a friend? There is a theory which might explain his position, interpreting
him as someone who once had a great mind, but is now losing control of it. This
is Polonius in a more tragic light, though Claudius evidently still relies on him
and trusts him, as he follows Polonius’s advice regarding spying, but also
agreeing to a meeting between Hamlet and the Queen before Hamlet is sent to
England. The latter theory is the viewpoint that perhaps Claudius and Gertrude
see him as a fool. When Polonius in Rct 2 Sc.2 gets carried away in his own
wordiness “Why day is day, night night…” [line 88] unintentionally, he is
opposing himself to the idea of his speech “brevity is the soul of wit” [line 90],
and Gertrude even remarks “More matter with less art.” *line 95], in other
words, bluntly pointing out that Polonius’s act as a wise advisor is conjured by
himself; that he is not the mind he thinks himself to be. Rct 3 Scene 1
reconfirms my original theory, as Polonius guesses-incorrectly and slightly
hypocritically-that the cause of Hamlet’s madness is down to Ophelia’s rejection,
again giving Hamlet, and the audience, the upper hand ‘yet do I believe The
origin and commencement of his grief/ Sprung from neglected love’. Even when
it is confirmed that hamlet’s madness has nothing to do with Ophelia, Polonius
sticks to his theory despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. Far from
appearing sinister then, the two (Claudius and Polonius) together appear
foolish, like puppets with Hamlet as their master, manipulating and playing
their minds. This is demonstrated earlier in the play, as Polonius tells Ophelia
not to believe his vows “for they are brokers” [Rct 1 sc.3 line 12f], yet here, he
himself is taken in by Hamlet’s performance. It is also worth noting that
Polonius had previously told Ophelia ‘Rffection? Pooh, you speak like a green
girl’ [Rct 1 Sc.3, lines 12f, + 101], showing he is proving to be stubborn on a
matter he previously disagreed with-and seemed so ready to persuade
Ophelialikewise of- himself.
Polonius is often contrasted with Hamlet. It could be argued his place in the
play is to emphasise Hamlet’s quick-wittedness and intelligent nature. He
seems not to understand the Prince is teasing him conversationally; ‘I did enact
Julius Caesar, I was killed I’ th’ Capitol; Brutus killed me’ [Polonius Rct 3 Sc.
2lines 105+106] ‘It was a brute part of him to kill so capitol a calf there’
[Hamlet lines 10f+8]. Scenes like this also help to contrast Hamlet’s sharp
dialogue with Polonius’s slow, lengthy style of speech, particularly when he is
with the King or Queen and uses it to impress: as Elkin Calhoun Wilson has
noticed ‘…and over-elaborating it [his ‘wisdom’+ in speech with the King and
Queen’. Hamlet further makes Polonius the butt of his jokes in Rct 3 Scene 2 ‘By
th’ mass and ‘tis, like a camel indeed’ [Polonius line 3f5] ‘Methinks it is like a
weasel’ [Hamlet line 3f6] and has more fun at the old diplomat’s expense. It
also quite blatantly makes a joke out of Polonius, the laughs in the audience this
time actually being against him, as he remains too involved in the sound of his
own voice to properly register what Hamlet is saying, establishing him
unarguably as a comic character.
Hamlet is a character with an excellent command over language in the play
though, and is naturally clever without striving to be, whereas Polonius speaks
in dragging, slow bouts and wants to be considered wise. There is clearly little
respect towards Polonius from Hamlet (“you are a fishmonger” [Rct.2 Sc.2 line
1f4], and, as he is the protagonist of the play, this sways the audience’s
opinion towards him. He is almost too cruel towards him at some points though,
e.g. “old men have grey beards…they have a plentiful lack of wit” [Rct.2 Sc.2
lines 19f-201], clearly describing Polonius, and so perhaps enforcing the idea of
him as a tragic character. Right until the end, Hamlet still treats Polonius as a
second-class person; showing no remorse at his death and branding him a ‘rash,
intruding fool’ [Rct 3 Scene 4 line 33] which of course he was. The words
‘intruding’ convey a completely different meaning to ‘cleverly inquisitive’ and
‘rash’ doesn’t invite the praise ‘spontaneous’ would. He was then labelled a fool
during his time in the play, and labelled a fool again upon his exit.
It is ironic Polonius’s death should be so unceremonious [Rct 3 Scene 4, stage
directions ‘Exit Hamlet dragging in Polonius’ line 219+ given that his persona in
the play was one of elaboration and false grandeur. This is almost like a last,
bittersweet laugh against him, exactly the opposite of how he would have liked
to have exited, the word ‘dragged’ being of particular importance, as when
performed on stage this would have been so undignified as to have crossed
slightly into black humour territory, depending on the director(“I’ll lug the guts
into the neighbour room”, Hamlet, Rct.3 Scene.4, line 213)lt is also exposing that
Polonius should have been killed from behind the arras, and in a foolish way
too. lt would have been wiser to remain hidden, and so by shouting,
symbolically, perhaps Polonius was revealing the shallowness there was to his
‘sinister’ persona. Hamlet’s reaction is one of brevity and disrespect ‘l took thee
for thy better’ [line 134]. However, his death does act as a catalyst for the race
towards the ending of the play; Hamlet is sent to England to meet his death,
though Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are killed instead. This proceeds to him
finally taking revenge on Claudius, and results in the murders of Gertrude,
Hamlet, Laertes and Claudius. Whether this increases his worth or not in the play
is open to interpretation. Elkin Calhoun Wilson decides ‘Polonius has a minor
tragic dimension as well as a major comic’ boasting ‘*my+ eyes catch a more
embracive view of him than Hamlet’s possibly can’ and with this l can, to an
extent, agree. lt is tragic he should be cast off in such a way, and in him there
was not just the ‘doddering old fool’, but also, as Elkin writes, a ‘comic
appendage’.
Overall then, looking at various views and studying the text thoroughly, l can
stick by my judgement of Polonius as a foolish, though comic, character.
Rlthough considered unimportant by those in the play, l believe him to bring a
welcome relief from the drama and tragedy entangled in the plot which would
otherwise make for a very depressing production. Of course, it is down to
personal interpretation how a director would present the character, but to me
the lengthy and self-important dialogue is unavoidable, and the undignified
death inevitable, making Polonius –arguably- doomed to lack credible menace
void of irony and humour, and therefore set firmly as a foolish ‘prating’
character.
Bibliography:
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/02.20.9f/bran
agh-9f08.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonius
www.jstor.org- Studies in English Literature 1500-1900: Vol. 8, No.2, Elizabethan
and Jacobean England
www.jstor.org- Shakespeare Quarterly: Vol.9, No.1 (Winter 1958), pp.83-85
Films:
Kenneth Branagh’s film version
Hamlet: 1996 Franco Zeffirelli’s film
version Hamlet: 1990
Copies of the text:
Cambridge School Shakespeare First Edition, published 1994
Heinemann Rdvanced Shakespeare, published 2000
Journals:
Shakespeare Quarterly: Vol. 9 (winter 2005), Vol.8 No.2 (spring 1968)