Polonius in Denmark

POLONIUS IN DENMARK
NARAYANA SWAMY

We were first introduced to Shakespeare as school children through the words of Polonius. His “Neither a borrower nor a lender be” was held up to us in school as words of classic wisdom. That these and other such pieces of unsolicited advice to his son are considered now to be mere platitudes is beside the point; nor, of course, is the fact that those who dinned these aphorisms into our ears were perpetual borrowers. Of course, as school teachers, they could hardly be lenders.

We also met Hamlet around the same time, through his words “Frailty! Thy name is Woman.” At that age we could hardly make any meaning out of this, as we were in no position to understand womankind; not that we are able to do so even now, but that again is beside the point.

Polonius appeared to us then as one who was a very wise old man. The thought that he was a sycophant or clown never entered our minds. To us, he was a venerable old man with a flowing white beard and we always associated him with the wise old minister one saw in mythological films of those days. Our imagination was helped further by the fact that we were rather hazy about what exactly “Hamlet” was about.

Without allowing literary critics of the West to fog one’s mind, how does one react to Polonius now? What is an Indian’s response to him?

The first thing that strikes one is that his very designation is not agreed upon by various editions of Hamlet. Most call him “Lord Chamberlain” but Mr. Dover Wilson calls him the “Principal Secretary of State.” His argument is that Polonius is the most important person in the state of Denmark after the Royal family and is a statesman and not a ceremonial official like the Lord Chamberlain.

If Polonius was something akin to a Prime Minister why is he being ridiculed by so many critics? Of course, Prime Ministers are subject to ridicule, but Polonius seems to be interpreted as a doddering, senile fool, who has been introduced into the play more for some comic relief than for any serious purpose. This, at least, was the impression we got in college, where we were under some compulsion to study the play in some detail.

Not everyone supports this theory fully. True, he plays the fool at several places in the play, but this appears to be deliberate and not instinctive. He does not see much action and before the third act is over, Polonius is dispatched by Hamlet with the words “Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell.”

Of course Polonius was intruding, but one could hardly call him a fool. Hamlet does, but then Hamlet’s ideas of men and matters are rather different and, in any case, Hamlet’s words are words spoken in annoyed haste, with the mind on other matters. I, personally, would not like to attach too much significance to the word “Fool.”

One of the first public acts of King Claudius is to thank his councillors for his elevation as king, through some system of election. It is obvious that as the Principal Secretary or Lord Chamberlain (call him what you may) Polonius used his considerable influence towards this end. Consider the words of the king to Laertes:

“The head is not more native to the heart,
The hand more instrumental to the mouth,
Than is the throne of Denmark to thy father.”

Polonius, though he does play the fool, more to humour Hamlet, who he thinks mad, is not a fool. He is many other things, but not a fool. He is a tyrant at home, and a scheming sycophant in court. He seems to have done a bit of playacting in his youth and arrogates to himself the authority of a poetic critic and can certainly eavesdrop when he wants to, without any qualms.

His own children are inhibited by his presence. Laertes appears to have had sound common sense in his decision to get away to Paris, where he can relax. His decision is supported by Polonius for his own reasons.

He knows that his son is fun-loving, and for all his platitudes, does send him money later on, though doing a bit of indirect spying on him through Reynaldo. His devious instructions to Reynaldo are interesting and reveal that the old man is not duped by Laertes’s filial promises but knows what he is likely to be doing.

A critic, writing on the world of Hamlet, says that it is a world of riddles. True, Hamlet himself is a riddle, and his language, punning, vulgarity and motivation and belated action are all riddles. But there are some other riddles not often noticed and even less often commented upon. Polonius is one such; or rather, some of his decisions, and what prompted him to take such decisions, are.

Polonius has played his part in Claudius becoming king. Yet, how much does he know? Does he know that Claudius had murdered the king? It seems rather a moot point whether Claudius would have taken anyone’s assistance for his crime. Nor does it seem likely that Polonius would have had a part in it. There is nothing in the play to show that Polonius committed treason. His motto is loyalty and by his actions after the death of Hamlet. So he seems to echo the words: “The king is dead. Long live the king.”

If Polonius did plot with Claudius to kill Hamlet (Sr.) then he should have been aware that the secret was out in the play scene. (Act 3 Sc), Yet it is only the king who is shown disturbed. Even if Dover Wilson’s stage directions are accepted and Polnnius and Claudius do not see the dumb show, busy discussing Hamlet, the main play at least should have revealed to the reader the complicity of Polonius. Yet, the scene does not seem to reveal any such thing. His only command “Give O’er the p1ay” seems to be more because the king has risen and is rushing away. Nor is there any mention of any feeling of guilt when the king and Polonius are alone in the next scene. If Polonius had known of the king’s guilt, one would normally expect them to discuss the matter now that Hamlet had come to suspect it. Yet Polonius only tells the king that Hamlet is going to his mother’s closet and that as pre-arranged (although by him–3, 1, 184-88) ascribing it in a true sycophantic way–“And as you said, and wisely was it said” to the king, he is going to eavesdrop and will report later to the king. It would appear that even at this stage, Polonius only thinks Hamlet is mad but not that the king is guilty.

And yet, Polonius has been party to Claudius becoming king. Why? In spite of some system of election, it would appear that then, as now, the crown was hereditary. Hamlet was certainly not a minor, and there does not seem to be any strong reason why those who had a say in the matter had to elevate Claudius when Hamlet was there; unless, of course, one considers the clever move of Claudius in having married Gertrude. The king’s words in his first official pronouncement.”

“........now our queen, Th’imperia jointress to this warlike state,” seems to signify that the queen had a right over the kingdom and that Claudius owed his own coronation to having married her. Considering the fact that Gertrude was quite old at that time (Hamlet himself is supposed to be around thirty. See Act 5,1,143-57) the motives of Claudius in marrying her are obvious. It was certainly a marriage of convenience for Claudius, who seems to have had neither carnal nor emotional reasons in mind. Polonius apparently felt that as the husband of the queen, Claudius had more right to the throne than Hamlet and hence supported him.

This could also explain why he forbade his daughter from meeting Hamlet. A worldly-wise pragmatist, Polonius certainly would want to be near the source of power and would not wish his daughter to have any emotional attachment which would come in his way. With his native shrewdness, he has been able to correctly feel the animosity between Hamlet and the king. Perhaps he even thought that Gertrude could yet produce a male heir to the throne, thereby completely thwarting whatever chances Hamlet still had. There does not seem to be any other reason why Polonius should stand in the way of his daughter encouraging the most eligible bachelor in the land, though his own mistrust of Hamlet’s intentions could also partly be a reason. As prince, Hamlet had his own limitations, and it could very well be that due to reasons of state he would have had to marry another princess. Then what would happen to Ophelia’s reputation?

Again, it is perhaps this instinctive feeling of the atmosphere in the court by Polonius that motivates him to send away his son to Paris. Laertes and Hamlet are more or less of the same age and could possibly have been on a more friendly equation had they been together, which would not be to the liking of Claudius. There are too many “ifs” in this kind of reasoning, but then, this is one more riddle in the play. Hamlet’s words

“...........That is Laertes,
A very noble youth”

appear to have some significance in this particular context.

So much for Prime Minister Polonius and his motivations, which, as can be seen, certainly do not show him to be a fool. But what of the man, himself, as father and courtier?

At home, Polonius is a veritable tyrant. His children can have no secrets from him. Laertes, after taking leave of his father, tarries on and, taking a leaf from his father’s book, preaches homilies to Ophelia. He is a very practical young man, and there is sound commonsense when he advises her not to take Hamlet seriously. He has correctly assessed that Hamlet’s will is not his own, since “on his choice depends the sanity and the health” of Denmark itself. Soon, however, Polonius comes in, and annoyed at seeing Laertes still there, chides him and gives him an impatient blessing; it does not, however, prevent him from indulging in his favourite hobby of listening to his own voice, and Laertes, in turn, is subjected to a sermon. Polonius, after that famous passage containing “apparel oft proclaims the man” and “neither a borrower nor a lender be” does not waste a minute after the departure of his son before he starts debriefing his daughter, asking her, point blank, “what is’t, Ophelia, he hath said to you?”

Laertes, at least, felt that Hamlet should not be taken seriously, since reasons of state could affect his emotional attachments. Polonius, on the other hand, does not believe in Hamlet’s word, and feels that the Prince, using his position, could take advantage of Ophelia and then cast her aside. He sternly prohibits her from even talking with Hamlet.

In his next appearance (2, 1) we learn further about Polonius the father. Despite the generation gap, he is not naive enough to believe that Laertes would follow all his maxims to the letter. The poor Reynaldo is the target now of Polonius’ verbiage. Polonius gets so carried away with the sound of his own words, that he even forgets what he is saying. (2, 1, 46-49) Be it his son, daughter, or even the king (2.2) to whom he is talking, he can’t help his verbiage; but even while being verbose with the royal couple, he can’t help interjecting a maxim like “brevity is the soul of wit.” The queen wants to go to the crux of the matter, but nothing can deviate Polonius from going on, and coming to the point in his own way.

Then, having conspired with the king and queen to spy upon Hamlet, by “losing his daughter to him,” (a surprising example of vulgarity by Polonius–surprising since he does not seem to understand Hamlet’s insinuation when Hamlet calls him “a fishmonger”) Polonius decides to humour Hamlet, who is apparently mad. From then on, whenever they meet, Polonius plays the fool, though his asides are sane enough.

Wanting to please the king, he plans and plots to find out whether Hamlet is really mad. Nor is he in doubt till the end that Hamlet’s grief is due to his own action of prohibiting Ophelia from talking to him. (2, 2, 142-150-163-166 and 3, 1, 179-181)

Polonius also tries to show that he is a judge of what is good poetry and good acting. Twice we come across strong words from him as to what is good poetry. Reading Hamlet’s letter to Ophelia, he takes objection to the word “beautified” and stops his reading to comment.

“That is an ill phrase, a vile phrase, ‘beautified’ is a vile phrase.”

Then, when the players are in, and Hamlet queries a phrase in their verse, “the mobled queen”, Polonius can’t help saying “That’s good, ‘mobled queen’ is good.” Compulsive talker, he finds anyone else’s words boring and comments upon the player’s words “This is too long,” but does not forget to flatter hamlet, when he makes a long speech.

“Fore God, my lord, well spoken, with good accent and good discretion.” He appears to have been an actor himself, and if one believes his words, he “was accounted a good actor.”

Tyrant at home, sycophantic at court, loyal in his own way till the end, a willing butt of Hamlet’s jibes whenever they meet. Polonius is many things. His pompous verbose nature does not leave him till the end. His last words are to the queen (3, 4, 1-5) and he is once again on familiar ground, advising her as to howand what she should talk with her own son.

Hamlet had no patience with him, nor had he any respect for him. To him, Polonius was an “intruding fool” and “a foolish, prating knave.” Polonius was intruding, eavesdropping, scheming and planning; he was also knavish, sycophantic and behaved like any other courtier. Yet, till the end, he was loyal in his own way, and lived and died thinking that he was serving his country and his king. He was foolish, for a reason, but was not a fool; he helped Claudius become king, because he was convinced that it was right, and not because he conspired with Claudius in the murder of the king.

Much injustice has been done to this old man by generations of readers and critics. Polonius is an old timer in the court of Denmark. He is too gullible to see through Claudius. Nor has he had the benefit of the ghost, like Hamlet, to know the truth. His fault is that he has taken all things at face value, where he thinks he is right, like prohibiting his daughter from talking to Hamlet, or reasoning out Hamlet’s madness, his old world values let him down, his ignorance of the Claudius-Hamlet-ghost triangle is an added factor. A pompous verbose man whose thinking was of another age, Polonius was a misfit in the court of Claudius and Hamlet.

He should have done what he says–
“Let me be no assistant for a state,
But keep a farm and carters”
for different reasons, and not if he had been disproved
in his theory regarding Hamlet’s madness.

It was not for Hamlet alone that the time was out of joint. It was so for Polonius also. Hamlet felt that he was born to set it right and died in the process. Polonius never even know that the time was out of joint, and died without knowing why. Therein lies the tragedy of Polonius.