I'm going to present Hamlet and Polonius as foils - they are both schemers, and they both use their plans to find knowledge. Hamlet sets up the Mousetrap play, and Polonius tells Ophelia to return Hamlet's letters to see his reaction. In the end, they both suffer similar fates. They are killed through tragic accidents that result from their scheming. From here I want to prove that they both cause each others' demises: Hamlet, of course, directly kills Polonius. Polonius' death is what causes all the action leading to the climax in Act 5. They are also both pawns - Hamlet of the ghost, and Polonius of Claudius.
I started off by close reading Polonius' long speech to Laertes on line 59 of Act 1 scene 3. Polonius tells Laertes to give his "thoughts no tongue" - he's telling Laertes to keep to himself, and to think before action. Essentially, he's telling him to be like Hamlet. Polonius also tells Laertes to, "Beware of entrance to a quarrel." Quarrel ends on a feminine rhyme, perhaps indicating that Laertes considers action weaker than thinking, the same kind of reverse thinking that applies to Hamlet.
I'm going to connect this to the part of my thesis about foils, leading to the intertwining fates idea. I haven't connected this to the pawns idea yet.
I think that an interesting distinction to write about would be the idea that Polonius was certainly meddlesome, but its more or less universal that the audience doesn't believe he deserves to die. You could twist that assumption with your idea that Polonius did in fact cause Hamlet's death indirectly and that perhaps he did get what was coming to him.
ReplyDeleteAlso, very interesting that Polonius thinks Laertes should adopt traits more like Hamlet's. We talked about how Fortinbras survives likely because he is a perfect mix between Hamlet and Laertes. Polonius being cognizant of that idea, may cast him as a wiser character than we initially assume.
I agree that Polonius and Hamlet can be considered foils, and while I think that they both can be considered pawns as well, I think it would be fair to investigate the scenes in which they both attempt to go against those who are controlling them. Hamlet questions the virtues of the ghost, and Polonius questions Claudius' determination about sending Hamlet to England. This could potentially further assert your argument.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in Polonius' speech to Laertes, he say,
"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."
This suggest that he only want Laertes to be true to himself and the double negative in the last line "canst not" asserts that he wants Laertes to be false to every man. While it may be true that in the beginning it seems as though he is referring to Hamlet, Polonius wants the truth out Hamlet about his madness and actions. You could use this as antithesis if you can find a way to argue against it.
We should also note that "to thine own self be true" = "Be selfish... don't worry about others." I'm not sure if the editor wrote a footnote on this or not.
ReplyDeleteHey Harry,
ReplyDeleteConnecting Hamlet and Polonius is an interesting idea...I wrote my 102 paper on Polonius and how one of his most important roles is orchestrating most of the spying in the book (its his idea to spy on Hamlet both in 3.1 and 3.4) and he dies in the act. I tracked all the instances of spying and subversion--basically, Hamlet and Polonius both use that deception to achieve their ends. I thought that could be good evidence for your thoughts on the scheming. Also think about Polonius' quote "by indirections find directions out." Polonius does this with Ophelia to find things out about Hamlet and Hamlet uses the Mousetrap play to catch the king in his lies. Also, to help you with the pawns idea, there doesn't seem to be much distinction between manipulators of spying/deceit and the pawns that execute it. For example, Laertes dies and he is simply Claudius' pawn. In fact, all the pawns die too. They are just as guilty. I hope this helps!
Harry this is some interesting insight. I think often times Laertes (as a son) is viewed more of a foil to Hamlet, but your perspective definitely works and is substantiated by some pretty solid evidence. I wonder if you could find synchrony in the feet and meter of Hamlet's and Polonius' speech?
ReplyDeleteI would also be interested to see how you consider audience reaction when analyzing the relationship between Hamlet and Polonius. I don't know about you, but there is almost a sense of satisfaction for me when Polonius is killed. He is such a brown-noser with Claudius and his scheming just makes hims seem really childish and petty to me... he gets what is coming to him, in my opinion. On the other hand, even though I don't love Hamlet's character, there is still a sense of sadness at his tragic end.
I agree with Austin in that synchrony in the feet and meter would definitely enhance the foil argument ... that is, if there is any.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to see how you prove that Polonius was responsible for Hamlet's demise. I see where you are making the connection, but you will need ample evidence supporting that claim as it is not necessarily a very direct connection. But if you can prove it, it will most definitely provide some fresh perspective. Also, I think finding similarity in their actual deaths/demises would be interesting, as they are both killed in the midst of being pawns in some sort of scheme set up by Claudius.