Polonius As Lord Burghley
..........."Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Act I. Scene 3.
Now Lord Burleigh's "ten precepts," which
are numbered in due order, contain some startling coincidences of expression
with the precepts of Polonius; those which do not fit the Poet's text
may be merely glanced at. Precept 1 relates to "choosing a wife,"
and keeping house; 2, to bringing up children; 3 contains advice respecting
servants. Precept 4 -- "Let thy kindred and allies be welcome to
thy house and table. Grace them with thy countenance, and farther them
in all honest actions. For by this means thou shalt so double the band
of nature as thou shalt find them so many advocates to plead an apology
for thee behind thy back. But shake off those glow-worms, I mean parasites
and sycophants, who will feed and fawn upon thee in the summer of prosperitie,
but in an adverse storme they will shelter thee no more than an arbour
in winter. 5. Beware of suretyship for thy best friends. He that payeth
another man's debts seeketh his own decay. But if thou canst not otherwise
chose, rather lend thy money thyself upon good bonds, although thou
borrow it. So shalt thou secure thyself, and pleasure thy friend. Neither
borrow of a neighbour or of a friend, but of a stranger, whose paying
for it thou shalt hear no more of it. 6. Undertake no suit against a
poor man without receiving much wrong. 7. Be sure to make some great
man thy friend. 8. Towards superiors be humble, yet generous. With thine
equals familiar, yet respective. Towards thine inferiors show much humanity
and some familiarity. 9. Trust not any man with thy life credit, or
estate. 10. Be not scurrilous in conversation, or satirical in thy jests."
(French 302-304) 2
Thus we have the first recorded link between Polonius and William Cecil. French was the first to point out that Polonius's precepts to his son Laertes were similar to Lord Burghley's Preceptes to his son Robert Cecil, which were not published until 1616. (Schoenbaum 493) However, French does not explain which of Polonius's precepts he sees linking to Burghley's.
The question then is: Why would French even look for such a linkage? The answer seems to be that given the fact that Polonius's relationship to the monarch is very much the same as Burghley's relationship to the monarch, French would then look for similarities in the precepts of both, either in content or in tone. I believe that he had in mind the following precepts, which are somewhat similar in content:
#1 and #2
..........."Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar.
And glancingly, #5 and #6
Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice.
Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment.
Be not scurrilous in conversation, or satirical in thy jests.
Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried, / Grapple them to thy soul with hooks of steel; / But do not dull thy palm with entertainment / Of each new hatch'd unfledged comrade.
Let thy kindred and allies be welcome to thy house and table. Grace them with thy countenance, and farther them in all honest actions. For by this means thou shalt so double the band of nature as thou shalt find them so many advocates to plead an apology for thee behind thy back. But shake off those glow-worms, I mean parasites and sycophants, who will feed and fawn upon thee in the summer of prosperitie, but in an adverse storme they will shelter thee no more than an arbour in winter.
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
#5 and #9
Beware of suretyship for thy best friends. He that payeth another man's debts seeketh his own decay. But if thou canst not otherwise chose, rather lend thy money thyself upon good bonds, although thou borrow it. So shalt thou secure thyself, and pleasure thy friend. Neither borrow of a neighbour or of a friend, but of a stranger, whose paying for it thou shalt hear no more of it.
Trust not any man with thy life credit, or estate.
These similarities in content, along with some overall similarity in tone and a few other arguments, have formed the basis for many later Stratfordian scholars to believe that Polonius was Burghley. Although I believe that the similarity in precepts can form the basis of one argument, I do not see it as strong enough by itself to make the identification. If the author of Hamlet were to parallel closely a majority of the precepts, then perhaps a definitive case could be made. But we have here similarities based on less than half of the precepts.
Furthermore, other individuals such as Sir Walter Raleigh also created "Instructions to a Son," as pointed out by Louis B. Wright in his Advice to a Son: Precepts of Lord Burghley, Sir WalterRaleigh, and Francis Osborne. But like Burghley, Raleigh was long dead when his instructions were published. Both postdate the death of William Shakspere.
One may wonder, then, why so many Stratfordian scholars strongly maintained that Polonius was modeled on Burghley. Later writers would have to come up with other strong instances of circumstantial evidence before making a good overall case for Polonius as Burghley.
Before we can discuss the rest of the circumstantial evidence, we must satisfactorily answer two questions, since many students of Shakespeare have never thought much of the plays in terms of topicality:
1) Is there any reason to think that dramatists in Shakespeare's time wrote topically and satirically?
2) If so, how does one go about establishing a strong case for a topical allusion and overcoming the inevitable *projections* one may have when biased toward a particular interpretation?
Is there any reason to think that dramatists in Shakespeare's time wrote topically and satirically?
Yes. Two Stratfordian scholars out of many have explored this topic in the last fifteen years: Annabel Patterson in Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England, and Leah S. Marcus in Puzzling Shakespeare: Local Readings and Its Discontents.
" poetry, or literature, has had from antiquity a unique role to play in mediating to the magistrates the thoughts of the governed, and that it exists, or ought to, in a privileged position of compromise." (Patterson 13)
"In the plays of Ben Jonson and Philip Massinger, in Shakespeare's King Lear, in a court masque by Thomas Carew, in the sermons of John Donne, there is evidence, if we look carefully, of a highly sophisticated system of oblique communication, of unwritten rules whereby writers could communicate with readers or audiences (among whom were the very same authorities who were responsible for state censorship) without producing a direct confrontation. The official recognition of the public theater as both, up to a point, a privileged domain with laws of its own, and a useful safety valve or even a source of intelligence, has been well established. Elizabeth's famous recognition of herself in a 1601 revival of Richard II and James's equally famous decision to let Middleton's Game at Chess play for twelve days tell the same story, and show that they recognized the wisdom of the message brought from the grave by the poet Collingbourne. One of the least oblique critics of Jacobean policy, the pamphleteer Thomas Scott, remarked in the significantly entitled Vox Regis that "sometimes Kings are content in Playes and Maskes to be admonished of divers things." (Patterson 45) 3
"Given the feckless, highly ingenious, almost ungovernable gusto with which contemporaries found parallels between stage action and contemporary events, there are few things that plays could be relied upon not to mean. In early Tudor times, plays were openly used both for official propaganda and for political agitation. Heavy-handed moralities glorified the Reformation; one play displayed Henry VIII cutting off the heads of the Catholic clergy with a two-handed sword. On the other hand, according to Holinshed it was at a play that leaders of Kett's Rebellion (1549) incited followers to "enter further into their wicked enterprise." During the early years of Elizabeth, the drama was no less embroiled in events and personalities. Plays like Gorboduc and The Comedy of Patient and Meek Grissell took up the vexed matter of royal succession. During the 1560s Elizabeth herself regularly interpreted comedies presented at court as offering advice about the succession: she was to follow the "woman's part," a part she professed to dislike, and marry as the heroine inevitably did at the end. Given her ability to find "Abstracts of the time" even in seemingly neutral materials. No comedy performed before her was safe from topical interpretation.
"Her subjects were no less agile. The fact that some plays like Gorboduc and the Tudor moralities commented so directly on contemporary affairs encouraged audiences to find similar resonances nearly everywhere else. During the 1580s court plays like George Peele's Arraignment of Paris built the presence of the queen into their very structure: the arraignment could not be performed at all unless the queen played her part. But even when such connections were not made structurally necessary, they were regularly found out. Negative examples are the most prominent in the surviving records if only because censorship caused them to receive special scrutiny. So, in 1601, a sudden rash of performances of Shakespeare's Richard II was taken by Elizabeth and her chief ministers (and not without reason) as propaganda for the Essex rebellion." (Marcus 27) 4
It appears that not only were dramatists writing plays that were topical, their audiences actually expected plays to be topical. Dramatists, therefore, could not help but expect their audience to read into the play those matters of topical interest. In fact, the more one studies the history of English drama, particularly in the early 16th century, the more one is struck by how virtually every play of any worth was full of topical, and even strongly political, allusions. (For a fascinating discussion of *devices* and topical allusions in early plays, see Glynne Wickham's multi-volume Early English Stages 1300 to 1660, especially volume three, pages 65-82. Wickham does an excellent job of helping the reader look through 16th-century eyes.)
The question now is:
How does one go about establishing a strong case for a topical allusion and overcoming the inevitable *projections* one may have when biased toward a particular interpretation?
The best way to ensure a convincing topical allusion is to have more than one kind of linking evidence. If one wants to make a case that a person is being caricatured in a play, one needs more than the coincidence, say, of the same name; or that the character talks in the same way. More than one kind of circumstantial evidence is needed to make a convincing case.
In a criminal trial, a case based on circumstantial evidence can be strong enough to convict, even for murder. In Shakespeare Identified, J. Thomas Looney (pronounced "Loney") describes the character of circumstantial evidence:
"[Circumstantial evidence is taken] mistakenly by some to be evidence of an inferior order, but in practice the most reliable proof we have. [...] The predominating element in what we call circumstantial evidence is that of coincidences. A few coincidences we may treat as simply interesting; a number of coincidences we regard as remarkable; a vast accumulation of extraordinary coincidences we accept as conclusive proof. And when the case has reached this stage we look upon the matter as finally settled, until, as may happen, something of a most unusual character appears to upset all our reasoning. If nothing of this kind ever appears, whilst every newly discovered fact adds but confirmation to the conclusion, that conclusion is accepted as a permanently established truth." (Looney 80)
In a murder trial without eyewitnesses, prosecutors must build a strong circumstantial case based on different kinds of evidence that intersects on the suspect. For example, before a jury will convict, strong evidence concerning motive, means, and opportunity must be presented. That is, the suspect must be shown to have intent, access to the murder weapon or other means to commit the murder, and be available in the timeframe and place of the murder. It helps when artifacts or *signs* can be linked to the suspect (i.e., shoe prints, make and model of car, etc.)
This triple-angled structure of circumstantial evidence is similar to the requirements exerted within a three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate system, where three terms (x, y, z) are needed to identify the intersection that locates a single and unique point in the coordinate system. In a 2-d system, only (x, y) are needed. [I bring up this mathematical model simply to point out how one needs more than one angle of information to precisely locate a point.]
The same holds true in making a strong case for a topical allusion or a modeling of a character on a real person. One single angle of evidence, no matter how compelling, is usually not enough. Simply saying that Polonius uses "words" that are strongly similar to Lord Burghley's is not enough. Thus, the coincidence that Polonius give precepts to his son and that Burghley has given precepts to his son is not enough to persusively make the case that Polonius is modeled on Burghely. By itself, this link stands merely as a coincidence. Other coincidencs, other angles of evidence must be presented. If a case can be made with three separate sets of coincidences, or angles of evidence, one can be more assured of overcoming biases and of presenting a strong, objective interpretation.
And a circumstantial case built from several angles is, by the nature of circumstantial evidence, stronger than others built merely on oen or two angles.
I propose to satisfy this three-angled approach to circumstantial evidence in showing that there exists a strong case in favor of Polonius being modeled after Lord Burghley. 5
2. You can read French's complete 12-page Notes on Hamlet. Among other speculations, he believes that Hamlet is Philip Sidney. French seems never to have questioned the traditional authorship attribution, so he seems disinterested in making the case for Burghley in an authorship context. return
4. Marcus is critical of anti-Stratfordians (pp. 34-36) and isolates Oxfordians for particular censure. She holds the notion that the Oxfordian case is built primarily upon topical readings of the plays. Her entire chapter on "Localization" is worth reading for the insights into the "universalizing and generalizing" of the author in the First Folio and for her discussions surrounding issues of topicality. return
5. I have relegated many weak arguments to the texts linked from the footnotes. Weak arguments only gain stature once the strong arguments are in place. return
Beckingsale, B.W., Burghley: Tudor Statesman, St. Martin's Press, London: 1967.
Carroll, D. Allen, ed., Greene's Groatsworth of Wit, Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, Binghampton: 1994.
Chambers, E. K., William Shakespeare--A Study of Facts and Problems, Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1930.
French, George Russell, Shakspeareana Geologica, Macmillan, London: 1869.
Gibson, H.N., The Shakespeare Claimants, Barnes & Noble, New York: 1962.
Greg, W.W., The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare, 3rd ed.,Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1954
Gurr, Andrew, William Shakespeare: The Extraordinary Life of the Most Successful Writer of All Time, HarperCollins, New York: 1995.
Harrison, G.B., Thomas Nashe: Pierce Penilesse, His Svpplication to the Divell, 1592, John Lane The Bodley Head Ltd, London: 1924.
Hume, Martin, The Great Lord Burghley, Eveleigh Nash, London: 1906.
Hurstfield, Joel & Sutherland, James, Shakespeare's World, St. Martin's Press, New York, 1964.
Hurstfield, Joel, The Queen's Wards, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1958.
Jenkins, Harold, ed., The Arden Shakespeare: Hamlet, Routledge, New York: 1982.
Looney, J. Thomas, Shakespeare Identified, Frederick Stokes Company, New York: 1920.
Martin, Milward, Was Shakespeare Shakespeare?, Cooper Square Publishers, New York, 1965.
McManaway, James G., The Authorship of Shakespeare, Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington: 1962.
Marcus, Leah S., Puzzling Shakespeare: Local Readings and Its Discontents, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley: 1988.
Matus, Irvin Leigh, Shakespeare, IN FACT, Continuum, New York: 1994.
Nashe, Thomas, The Unfortunate Traveller and Other Works, Penguin Books, London: 1972.
Ogburn, Charlton, The Mysterious William Shakespeare, 2nd ed., EPM, McLean: 1992.
Patterson, Annabel, Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England,Univ. of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1984.
Read, Conyers, Mr. Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth, Jonathan Cape, London: 1955, 1962 (Bedford Historical Series).
Rowse, A.L., Shakespeare The Man, Harper & Row, New York: 1973.
Rowse, A.L., William Shakespeare: A Biography, Harper & Row, New York: 1963.
Ruoff, James E., Crowell's Handbook of Elizabethan and Stuart Literature, Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York: 1975.
Schoenbaum, S., Shakespeare's Lives, new ed., Clarendon Press, London: 1991.
Sobran, Joseph, Alias Shakespeare, The Free Press, New York: 1997.
Wadsworth, Frank W., The Poacher From Stratford, Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley: 1958.
Ward, B. M., The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, John Murray, London, 1928.
Weiner, Albert B., Hamlet: The First Quarto 1603, Barron's Educational Series, Great Neck: 1962.
Wells, Stanley & Taylor, Gary, William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion, W.W. Norton, New York: 1997.
Whalen, Richard F., Shakespeare: Who Was He?, Praeger, Westport: 1994.
Wickham, Glynne, Early English Stages 1300 to 1660, Volume Three, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London:1981.
Williams, Neville, All The Queen's Men, Macmillan, New York: 1972.
Wilson, Ian, Shakespeare: The Evidence, St. Martin's Press, New York: 1993.
Wilson, J. Dover, The Essential Shakespeare, Cambridge Univ. Press, London: 1937.
Winstanley, Lilian, Hamlet and the Scottish Succession, Cambridge Univ. Press, London: 1921.
Wright, Louis B. Advice to a Son, Cornell University Press, Ithaca: 1962.