Contemporary representations of the character of Polonius come in mainly two forms: an old fool, or a vile accomplice to regicide. However, through close textual analysis of Shakespeare’s play, we can see that these are erroneous choices. In the same vein as Carolyn Heilbrun’s critical essay “The Character of Hamlet’s Mother” in which she attacks critics for misconstruing Gertrude, I posit that the modern consensus around the character of Polonius is just as deeply flawed and in dire need of reorientation.

Any quick search online for “Polonius” and the description one is apt to find is unbecoming. The summary of the play Hamlet on Britannica.com paints him as “the pompous old courtier” (6); Polonius’ character profile on SparkNotes.com, which influences the views on countless adolescents reading the play for the first time, claims that “as a comic character, he constantly shows himself less wise than he thinks” (1). It seems that in virtually all mediums of adaptation, as well, Polonius is distilled down to a foolish or evil caricature. In Laurence Olivier’s 1948 film, Felix Aylmer played him as an overtalkative graybeard, shuffling about the halls of Elsinore like a wind-up toy (11:00-1:25:00). Hume Cronyn took this comedic portrayal further in John Gielgud’s 1964 Broadway production, opposite Richard Burton, with his walking stick, thick glasses, and booming voice drawing thunderous laughs from the audience, most notably during the “fishmonger” scene (00:00-4:04). Cronyn won a Tony award for his performance (the only award for a stage or film portrayal of Polonius to date), giving further credit to this doltish characterization. John Updike, in his 2000 novel Gertrude and Claudius, paints a darker, more sinister picture of Polonius: a power-hungry, narcissistic councilor who aids Claudius in his plans to kill the King (Updike).  It is understandable why directors, authors and critics view Polonius in such simplistic terms. The original fabula, written down by Saxo in the late 12th century, describes him briefly as “A friend of Feng, gifted more with assurance than judgment” (Saxo 4), who offers to spy on Amleth (Hamlet); upon his discovery eavesdropping, Amleth kills, cuts up, and feeds him to the swine. Furthermore, it is reasonable for scholars to point to the long tradition of rash, misjudging, tedious old men, used for comic relief since the dawn of theater, as the basis for Polonius: “This old man is a conventional stage character who can be traced from Roman comedy, through a series of Italian sixteenth-century plays, to Shakespeare and beyond” (Falk 28). However, I will argue that Polonius is not as two-dimensional in Shakespeare’s play; instead, he is an erudite, self-aware man who is tragically caught up in the events at Elsinore.

Let’s begin with Hamlet and his influence on the negative characterization of Polonius. In a play titled, Hamlet, it is sensible to take the side of the titular character, as many critics do when it comes to Polonius. Besides the tradition of the comedic old man, much of the representations of Polonius as a fool hinge on, to some degree, Hamlet’s “words, words, words” (2.2.189). Hamlet never minces words with the chief councilor, attacking his intellect throughout the play. Hamlet rebukes Polonius for his age, generalizing old men as having “a plentiful lack of wit” (2.2.191) and being “tedious old fools” (2.2.14). When Polonius mentions his experience acting in the role of Julius Caesar, dying at the hands of Brutus, Hamlet quips, “It was a brute part of him to kill so capital a calf” (3.2.101), “calf” meaning buffoon. After murdering Polonius, Hamlet calls him a “wretched, rash, intruding fool “(3.4.29) and a man “Who was in life a most foolish prating knave” (3.4.213). All these characterizations evoke a bumbling windbag. However, it is important to note that the first time Polonius and Hamlet converse in the play is after Hamlet is tasked by his phantom father with revenge, some time after he proposes “To put an antic disposition on” (1.5.170):

POLONIUS. Do you know me, my lord?

HAMLET. Excellent well, you are a fishmonger. (2.2.170-171)

This ridiculous answer alerts the audience that Hamlet has begun to feign madness. It also calls into question his depictions of Polonius from this point on in the play. The pointed nature of Hamlet’s jests towards Polonius is probably more the result of Polonius’ proximity to Claudius than his disposition. Might not Hamlet’s vengeful rage color those in the immediate sphere of his uncle as reproachable? This certainly is the case with Gertrude, why not for Polonius as well? For Hamlet, they are both guilty by association.

Yet another reason to question Hamlet’s low opinion of Polonius is that both characters are vying for control of Ophelia. After hearing of Ophelia’s “tender” relations with Hamlet, her father, Polonius, decrees: “I would not in plain terms from this time forth / Have you so slander any moment leisure / To give words or talk with the Lord Hamlet” (1.4.131-133). While there is no evidence that Hamlet explicitly knew that Polonius was responsible for the rift in relations with his love, he could have certainly suspected it. Hamlet does, after all, allude to having sex with Ophelia using metaphorical language, ostensibly to cause anger and frustration in Polonius:

HAMLET…have you a daughter?

POLONIUS. I have, my lord.

HAMLET. Let her not walk i`th` sun: conception is a blessing but as your daughter may conceive, friend – look to`t. (2.2.181-183)

Here, Hamlet is implying that Ophelia could be pregnant if she is left unguarded. Later in act two, Hamlet broaches the subject yet again:

HAMLET. O Jephthah, judge of Israel, what treasure hadst thou?

POLONIUS. What treasure had he, my lord?

HAMLET. …One fair daughter and no more…(2.2.339-343)

Hamlet pauses on this line to focus on Jephthah, a judge from the Old Testament, who sacrificed his virgin daughter, again implying that Ophelia lost her virginity. We can see through the interactions with Polonius that Hamlet is bitter about his falling out with Ophelia and it appears he suspects that Polonius is responsible. Thus, we should take Hamlet’s harsh characterization of the chief counselor with a grain of salt, tempered by his rage against Claudius and his love for Ophelia.

The only other character that knocks Polonius is Gertrude, who criticizes his verbosity one time with the line “More matter with less art” (2.2.95). However, the awkward, embarrassing nature of this conversation – the fact that Polonius’ daughter might be the cause of Hamlet’s distress, and, consequently, the King and Queen’s uneasiness – leads Polonius to beat around the bush before getting to the point, something Gertrude, with her penchant for brevity, apparently can`t handle. Apart from the questionably biased lines from Hamlet, and this one line from Gertrude, no one else in the play speaks ill of Polonius.

The King, on the other hand, seems to rely on Polonius, entrusting him with the most private of matters: spying on his wife and son-in-law, the heir to the throne. The crafty tactician that he is, Claudius would not lay such an important task on one not capable. Through the interactions with the King, we gain a clearer picture of Polonius. During one such interaction, Polonius summarizes his fidelity to those he must serve. “I hold my duty as I hold my soul, / Both to my God and to my gracious King” (2.2.44-45). The King appears to corroborate this view of Polonius during a subsequent conversation:

POLONIUS. What do you think of me?

KING. As a man faithful and honourable. (2.2.126-127)

Not only is Polonius a man of faith and honor, but he is also an adroit tactician. As Claudius has no reason lie to his subordinate, the accuracy of Polonius’ past judgments are bolstered by the honesty of the King:

POLONIUS. Hath there been such a time – I would fain to know that –

That I have positively said `tis so

When it proved otherwise?

KING. Not that I know. (2.2.150-153)

Before the events of the play, then, we can assume that Polonius’ judgment was without fault, at least in matters related to his court duties at Elsinore. How else could one rise in the ranks to such a high position than by shrewdness? Although Hamlet deceives Polonius into thinking that his melancholy derives solely from “the very ecstasy of love” (2.1.99), there is some truth in Polonius’s judgment. On Hamlet’s supposed insanity, Polonius realizes that the young man’s wit is still strong: “Though this be madness yet there is method in`t” (2.2.202-203). To give Polonius the benefit of the doubt – a politically minded, pragmatic man – it would have been difficult to guess that the catalyst for this “madness” is from another plane of existence: the spiritual realm. It appears that, while Polonius may have missed the mark a bit, he was correct about Hamlet’s love for his daughter. At Ophelia`s grave, Hamlet declares:

HAMLET. I loved Ophelia – forty thousand brothers

Could not with all their quantity of love

Make up my sum… (5.1.258-260)

Polonius was so adamant that it was Hamlet’s love that caused the erratic behavior that he offers to step down from his position if his assumption proves false:

POLONIUS. Mark the encounter: if he love her not

And be not from his reason fallen thereon

Let me be no assistant for a state

But keep a farm and carters. (2.2.161-164)

Two important points can be gleaned by this statement. First and foremost, Polonius’ inability to suspect Hamlet’s plot to revenge his father’s death by killing Claudius makes it clear that Polonius did not know of Claudius’ regicide. For Polonius not to make this connection suggests his innocence in the matter. Secondly, Polonius is not Claudius’ henchman, as he describes his role as an “assistant for a state.” Note that he uses the word “state” rather than “king” or “Claudius”: the former term sounds more like a political title in the government than anything more sinister. Polonius is duty-bound to serve the state of Denmark, however evil or tyrannical the King may be.

Further proof of Polonius’ innocence on the issue of regicide is how Claudius carelessly manages Polonius’ funeral arrangements. Laertes chides the King on this subject:

LAERTES. His means of death, his obscure funeral –

No trophy, sword nor hatchment o`er his bones,

No noble rite, nor formal ostentation… (4.5.205-207)

Laertes brings up two reasons why he is dishonored: the murder of his father and his scant burial. Of course, Hamlet was the cause of Polonius’ death, but it was Claudius, the King, who was responsible for any final decision on the burial arrangements. If Polonius was indeed more than just a civil servant but an evil shadow of Claudius, helping him fulfill his wicked deeds, then why such an ignoble burial? I would argue that nothing other than his vocation drew Polonius near to Claudius, and though Polonius was a helpful “assistant for a state” he meant no more than that to Claudius.

Let us now turn to the words of Polonius himself – as Heilbrun turned to Gertrude’s – to understand his significance. The sagaciousness rather than foolishness of Polonius is borne out in the elevated importance of his wise saws in the play – more important to the readers in the early seventeenth century. As Sonia Massai argues on the BBC podcast, In Our Time, “the early printed text suggests that he may have been taken seriously indeed, even more seriously than we do today because there are quotation marks placed next to some of his most famous intenses” (23:40-23:54). In Quarto 1(1603), fourteen of Polonius’ (referred to a Corambis) lines were printed with marginal inverted commas, alerting the reader to recommended passages to copy out into their commonplace books for use in daily life. Dating back to antiquity and reaching its zenith during the Renaissance through the times of Shakespeare before declining in popularity in the eighteenth-century, Commonplace books were a place where writers —and literate professionals—would collect and categorize quotations, observations, and ideas of note, from which to draw on in their writing, work, or social interactions. This is significant because the first printed version of the play recommended only Polonius’ lines for Elizabethan readers to copy – not those of Hamlet or Claudius.

Quarto 1 was published at a time when English poets and authors were beginning to use commonplaced lines as a way to showcase their artistic talents and highlight their best work. The late sixteenth and early seventeenth century marked a shift in England from the Renaissance pedagogical practice of exclusively commonplacing classical authors towards an effort “to replace the ancient canon of authors and rewrite commonplacing in the language of a new canon of modern poets” (Moss 210). In keeping with this ongoing trend of commonplacing vernacular poetry, Shakespeare and his editors must have felt a growing pressure to add to this burgeoning canon. The varying use of inverted quotations in Q1 and Q2 –with fourteen of Polonius` lines in Q1, three of Laertes’, and four of Gertrude’s lines in Q2– illustrate the fluidity of commonplacing in this era. While Quarto 2 commonplaces different lines, it is still important, I would argue, that the first known published version of Hamlet seems to emphasize what the old chief councilor has to say over all the other characters.

Traditionally, scholars have viewed Q2 as the more artistic rendering of the play, however this consensus has come under scrutiny in recent years. In the article, “The First Literary Hamlet, and the Commonplacing of Professional Plays,” Zach Lesser and Peter Stallybrass argue for a reinterpretation of “Q1 Hamlet as a play for reading and even for study,” (378) going on to say that “the commonplace markers in Q1 Hamlet fashion a literary status for the playbook not by reference to the play’s origins—whether Shakespeare or the King’s Men—but instead by reference to its reception (and indeed, its pre-ception) by readers” (378). If Q1 should be taken more seriously by scholars, then, I would argue, why not the character of Polonius as well?

Now let us look more closely at the lines that were marked for commonplacing in Q1, Polonius’ advice to his son and daughter, the didactic quality of which comes from a long tradition of “wise father” sententiae, whereby a learned elder bequeaths his knowledge onto his children. Doris Falk, in her essay, Proverbs and the Polonius Destiny, illuminates how Shakespeare put his unique spin on this tradition:

The important difference between the advice of Shakespeare’s Polonius to his son and that of the other wise fathers is that the latter always begin with spiritual advice—to worship God, respect the king, one’s parents, and the law— but Polonius selects the practical and politic advice to be close-mouthed, discreet, careful in the selection of friends; to fight only on suitable provocation, not to borrow or lend money, and to dress appropriately. (27)

Polonius as a pragmatic father modernizes and secularizes the classical “wise father” tradition by couching it in practical terms. Not only do these proverbs help elevate the text as worthy of the emergent literary canon with their roots in classical soil, but it also assists in deconstructing the character of Polonius. Arguably one of the most recognizable lines of not only Polonius but of Shakespeare’s entire canon of work, and one of the lines marked with inverted commas in Q1, is, “This above all, to thine owne selfe be true, / And it must follow as the night the day, / Thou canst not then be false to any one” (Q1, 11. 367-370). Scholars point to the medieval Latin books of proverbs by Cato as a possible source: “Many of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century translators rendered “repugnando tibi” as “be constant to thyself” (Falk 29). The twist that Shakespeare puts on this axiom is interesting — if you are true to yourself, you can`t be false to others. This sentence helps to reveal the inner nature of Polonius, a man who appears to deceive others by spying but, in fact, is following his inner moral compass; he does what must be done to fulfil his duty to Denmark and his family.

Many critics point to the scene not long after Polonius advises his children, when Polonius enlists Reynaldo to spy on Laertes in Paris, as proof of his hypocritical and treacherous nature: Polonius is likened to, in one scholar`s words, “A Machiavellian schemer who takes his plotting to absurd proportions” (Hartwig 218). However, I would argue that Polonius’s political adroitness and understanding of human nature compels him to act. In the same way that, as Polonius says, Ophelia could, “tender [him] a fool” (1.3.108) and disrupt his tenuous position as chief councilor —a position not given and sustained indefinitely by noble birth, but one earned and held by merit and reputation — Laertes could tarnish his delicate standing in the court of Elsinore if any scandals were to surface from Paris. Polonius instructs Reynaldo:

Your bait of falsehood take this carp of truth,

And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,

With windlasses and with assays of bias,

By indirections find direction out… (2.1.60-63)

This passage is yet another example of Shakespeare using Polonius as a vehicle for reworking proverbial statements; it is a take on the wise saw expression, “Tell a lie and find a truth” (The Arden Shakespeare 232). Using Polonius’ logic, he is not lying to his son as he “canst not then be false to any one” because “to thine owne selfe” he is being true – namely his inclination to doublecheck that his son is following his rules, for both of their reputations depend on it. This shows Polonius’ distrust and suspicion, likely exacerbated by the uncertain and ever-shifting court politics of Elsinore, runs deep. While Hamlet and Polonius may not agree on many things, they certainly agree on this:

HAMLET. Ay, sir, to be honest as this world goes is to be one man picked out of ten thousand.

POLONIUS. That`s very true, my lord. (2.2.175-177)

An old expression states, “never trust a politician.” And Polonius takes this further by not trusting anyone, not even his own son. This is the cost of success in the twisted court of Elsinore.         However, throughout the play, Polonius shows a remarkable degree of self-awareness and place in the world, a marked departure from the “old man” stage convention. As mentioned before, his advice to his son is practical. To those not of noble blood, success comes from merit and reputation, and Polonius tries to pass on this understanding to his children. He also reminds Ophelia that they are of lower than noble status when he tells her,

For Lord Hamlet,

Believe so much in him that he is young

And with a larger tether may he walk

Than may be given you. (1.3.122-125)

Ophelia, Laertes, and Polonius himself have shorter tethers of opportunity for advancement than the nobility that surrounds them at court. Thus, reputation is key, and one must be tactful in one`s endeavors. Polonius is protecting his children, in a responsible albeit seemingly deceitful manner.

Unlike the obstinate old men of traditional theater, Polonius shows himself to be malleable, willing to reorient himself when the winds of reason blow in new directions. After Ophelia reveals how the mad and disheveled Hamlet accosted her, looking as if he had been “loosed out of hell” (2.1.80), Polonius realizes that his initial assumption – that Hamlet sought Ophelia`s flesh and not her love – was erroneous. It appears that by preventing Ophelia from meeting with Hamlet, Hamlet has become distraught with rejected love. Humble Polonius, realizing his mistake, apologizes to Ophelia twice, stating, “I am sorry” in both lines 2.1.103 and 2.1.108. Realizing that opinions can be subjective, Polonius goes on to say:

By heaven it is as proper to our age

To cast beyond ourselves in our opinions

As it is common for the younger sort

To lack discretion… (2.1.111-114)

Here, Polonius is recognizing the shortcomings of both old age and youth. The former is more associated with the mind, the latter with the heart. In other words, Polonius is self-aware of the foibles of his age, that age can cause one to overthink things, and he accepts his error graciously.

Even if one does not accept the evidence that Polonius is more than a two-dimensional character who was taken seriously by audiences of the Elizabethan era, one can`t avoid the prominence of Polonius in this play. In the first half of the play, besides Hamlet, no other character is on stage as much as Polonius. Apart from the scenes on the battlements with the ghost, Polonius is in every scene from act one, scene two until act three, scene four. In a five-act play, this is a substantial amount. The sudden death of Polonius weighs heavier on an audience than if a less prominently featured character had died in his place. If Polonius had not been characterized as a “foolish prating knave” but a wise civil servant stuck between a rock and a hard place, would not his death add to the tragedy of this play? I believe it would. For too long, Polonius has been misjudged by critics and misrepresented in adaptations of the play. Polonius’ role as a civil servant, his lower rank as represented in Ophelia’s short “tether,” his misjudgment of Hamlet’s madness, and his ignoble burial suggest Polonius had nothing to do with the death of king Hamlet. As for his foolishness, perhaps critics have been trusting the biased words of young and emotionally vulnerable Hamlet too much. Through close textual analysis of Shakespeare’s play, we can see that Polonius’ words and actions belie the foolishness that Hamlet – and audiences – task him with.

Shakespeare didn`t have much to work with in Saxo, yet he transformed “a friend of Feng” into a rich character and unique civil servant that broke the mold; the depth of Polonius subverted the old man stage conventions, while his practicality undermined the wise father tradition. Further, the commonplacing of Polonius’ wise saws in the early printed text suggest that he was meant to be taken seriously. Rather than the erroneous characterizations we often see today, Polonius should instead be represented as a shrewd tactician, savvy in court politics; a philosopher of sorts, schooled in classical proverbs and wise saws; a thespian, with experience acting and a keen knowledge of the Roman dramatists; and a family man who tries to safeguard his loved ones. These qualities sound remarkably similar to Hamlet himself. In a play about fathers and revenge, the murder of Polonius by Hamlet adds a deeper irony to the play when viewed through the lens which I have just provided, and perhaps, as it was meant to be viewed to begin with.

Works Cited

Bevington, David. “Hamlet.” Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2021. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hamlet-by-Shakespeare

“Characters: Polonius.” SparkNotes, Barnes & Noble, 2021. https://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/hamlet/character/polonius/

Falk, Doris V. “Proverbs and the Polonius Destiny.” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 1, 1967, pp.23–36. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2868060

“Hamlet and Polonius (“words words”) – Richard Burton (1964).” Youtube, uploaded by tvclassics, 29 July 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l93LR6Sw75Q

“HAMLET – Laurance Olivier – 1948 – HD Restored – 4k.” Youtube, uploaded by Shakespeare Network, 9 May 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsPPI_7x1dk&t=5053s

Hartwig, Joan. “Parodic Polonius.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 13, no. 2, 1971, 215–225. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/40754147

Heilbrun, Carolyn. “The Character of Hamlet`s Mother.” In Hamlet`s Mother and Other Women. 1st ed., Colombia UP, 1990.

“In Our Time: S20/15 Hamlet (Dec 28 2017).” Youtube, uploaded by In our Time, 20 Dec. 2019. https://youtu.be/OPiPhUJbcN8

Lesser, Zachary and Peter Stallybrass. “The First Literary Hamlet and the Commonplacing of Professional Plays,” Shakespeare Quarterly, Volume 59, No. 4, Pages 371–420, https://doi.org/10.1353/shq.0.0040.

Moss, Ann. Printed Commonplace-Books and the Structuring of Renaissance Thought. 1st ed., Clarendon Press, 1996.

Saxo Grammaticus. The Danish History (C.1200), translated from Latin by Oliver Elton (Norroena Society, New York, 1905), Internet Sacred Text Archive, https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/saxo/index.htm

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. The Arden Shakespeare. 3rd ed., Bloomsbury, 2006.

Updike, John. Gertrude and Claudius. 1st ed., Ballantine Books, 2000.