What's eating Polonius?

[Ray Eston Smith]

The attack on Claudius’ kingdom by Fortinbras Jr was diverted to an attack on Poland.
The attack on Claudius by Hamlet Jr was diverted to an attack on Polonius.
Shakespeare reinforced that parallel with word-play, starting with the obvious “Poland”/”Polonius”.
Other examples:
Polonius
Behind the arras I'll CONVEY myself,
....
Fortinbras
Go, captain, from me greet the Danish king;
Tell him that, by his licence, Fortinbras
Craves the CONVEYance of a promised march
Over his kingdom.
...
Hamlet (looking in a grave)
The very CONVEYances of his lands will hardly lie in this box

================

Hamlet
How now! a rat? Dead, for a DUCAT, dead!
....
Captain
Truly to speak, and with no addition,
We go to gain a little patch of ground
That hath in it no profit but the name.
To pay five DUCATS, five, I would not FARM it;
Nor will it yield to Norway or the Pole
A ranker rate, should it be sold in fee.
.....
Polonius
Be you and I behind an arras then;
Mark the encounter: if he love her not
And be not from his reason fall'n thereon,
Let me be no assistant for a state,
But keep a FARM and carters.
==============
Polonius announced the ambassadors from Norway who would tell Claudius that Fortinbras’ attack had been shifted to Poland:
....
Polonius
Give first admittance to the ambassadors;
MY news shall be the FRUIT TO THAT GREAT FEAST. [the end or dessert]
....
After the ambassadors delivered their news:
Polonius
This business is WELL ENDED.
......
After Hamlet’s attempt to attack Claudius caused Polonius’ untimely end:
Ophelia
...when my father died: they say he made a GOOD END,
.....
Claudius
Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius?
Hamlet
At supper.
Claudius
At supper! where?
Hamlet
Not where he eats, but where HE IS EATEN: a certain convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Your worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service, two dishes, but to one table: that's THE END.
======================
There was another foreshadowing of Polonius as dessert:

Hamlet
....AFTER YOUR DEATH you were better have a bad epitaph than their ill report while you live.
Polonius
My lord, I will use them according to their DESERT.
Hamlet
God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man after his DESERT, and who should 'scape whipping?

I wasn’t sure that “dessert” was an English word back then, until I found this:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dessert
dessert
1600, from M.Fr. dessert (1539) "last course," lit. "removal of what has been served," from desservir "clear the table," lit. "un-serve," from des- "remove, undo" + O.Fr. servir "to serve."

======

There's also a related motif that brings Polonius to the table:

Polonius
Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth
......
Hamlet
...you are a fishmonger.
Polonius
Not I, my lord.
Hamlet
Then I would you were so honest a man
.....
Hamlet
Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain
convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Your
worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all
creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for
maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but
variable service, two dishes, but to one table:
that's the end
.....
A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm

So maybe the fruit of the great feast was an apple with a worm in it
(or worse, half a worm).

[whiteangel]

"politic worms"

[Janine]

The attack on Claudius’ kingdom by Fortinbras Jr was diverted to an attack on Poland.
The attack on Claudius by Hamlet Jr was diverted to an attack on Polonius.
Shakespeare reinforced that parallel with word-play, starting with the obvious “Poland”/”Polonius”.
Other examples:
Polonius
Behind the arras I'll CONVEY myself,
....
Fortinbras
Go, captain, from me greet the Danish king;
Tell him that, by his licence, Fortinbras
Craves the CONVEYance of a promised march
Over his kingdom.
...
Hamlet (looking in a grave)
The very CONVEYances of his lands will hardly lie in this box

================

Hamlet
How now! a rat? Dead, for a DUCAT, dead!
....
Captain
Truly to speak, and with no addition,
We go to gain a little patch of ground
That hath in it no profit but the name.
To pay five DUCATS, five, I would not FARM it;
Nor will it yield to Norway or the Pole
A ranker rate, should it be sold in fee.
.....
Polonius
Be you and I behind an arras then;
Mark the encounter: if he love her not
And be not from his reason fall'n thereon,
Let me be no assistant for a state,
But keep a FARM and carters.
==============
Polonius announced the ambassadors from Norway who would tell Claudius that Fortinbras’ attack had been shifted to Poland:
....
Polonius
Give first admittance to the ambassadors;
MY news shall be the FRUIT TO THAT GREAT FEAST. [the end or dessert]
....
After the ambassadors delivered their news:
Polonius
This business is WELL ENDED.
......
After Hamlet’s attempt to attack Claudius caused Polonius’ untimely end:
Ophelia
...when my father died: they say he made a GOOD END,
.....
Claudius
Now, Hamlet, where's Polonius?
Hamlet
At supper.
Claudius
At supper! where?
Hamlet
Not where he eats, but where HE IS EATEN: a certain convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Your worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but variable service, two dishes, but to one table: that's THE END.
======================
There was another foreshadowing of Polonius as dessert:

Hamlet
....AFTER YOUR DEATH you were better have a bad epitaph than their ill report while you live.
Polonius
My lord, I will use them according to their DESERT.
Hamlet
God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man after his DESERT, and who should 'scape whipping?

I wasn’t sure that “dessert” was an English word back then, until I found this:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dessert
dessert
1600, from M.Fr. dessert (1539) "last course," lit. "removal of what has been served," from desservir "clear the table," lit. "un-serve," from des- "remove, undo" + O.Fr. servir "to serve."

======

There's also a related motif that brings Polonius to the table:

Polonius
Your bait of falsehood takes this carp of truth
......
Hamlet
...you are a fishmonger.
Polonius
Not I, my lord.
Hamlet
Then I would you were so honest a man
.....
Hamlet
Not where he eats, but where he is eaten: a certain
convocation of politic worms are e'en at him. Your
worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all
creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for
maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but
variable service, two dishes, but to one table:
that's the end
.....
A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a
king, and eat of the fish that hath fed of that worm

So maybe the fruit of the great feast was an apple with a worm in it
(or worse, half a worm).

I found that quite interesting. I like the way you have pointed out the word references. I have never studied the text this closely but admit if is quite fascinating seeing it in this light. Thanks for posting this. I love the worm section of the text; clearly shows just how clever and intelligent and deep Hamlet truly is.

[Beewulf]

Hi Ray,

Well, it's me again. The nay-sayer. I'll respond more later (sure you're thrilled about that), but I wanted to point out a problem with the use of the word "dessert."

You write,


There was another foreshadowing of Polonius as dessert:

Hamlet
....AFTER YOUR DEATH you were better have a bad epitaph than their ill report while you live.
Polonius
My lord, I will use them according to their DESERT.
Hamlet
God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man after his DESERT, and who should 'scape whipping?

I wasn’t sure that “dessert” was an English word back then, until I found this:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=dessert
dessert
1600, from M.Fr. dessert (1539) "last course," lit. "removal of what has been served," from desservir "clear the table," lit. "un-serve," from des- "remove, undo" + O.Fr. servir "to serve."

I appreciate the citation, but support is only evidence if the imformation one cites is valid. In this case, it isn't, for there is a signficant difference in meaning between the homophones "desert" and "dessert."

When spelled with a single "s" (as it is in Hamlet and Polonius' lines) "desert" refers to reward or punishment based on the quality of someone's actions or character. When Polonius says he'll treat the actors according to their desert, he means he'll give them what they deserve (which in Polonius' opinion is probably not much). When Hamlet says that they should get better than they deserve, he is about to make a general statement about the nature of human beings. Hamlet remarks that if one applied the standard of giving every man his just reward, then everyone would deserve corporal punishment. In other words, Hamlet feels that everyone (including himself) is guilty. In Hamlet's case, his personal sense of guilt is probably related to the fact that he has not yet revenged his father's murder.

To suggest that "desert" and "dessert" are synonymous is akin to imagining that Macbeth's line, "They have tied me to the stake, I cannot fly!" is a reference to cut of beef. Moreover, this kind of error leads one away from the essential meaning of the text.

[Ray Eston Smith]

Ever heard of a pun?

[Beewulf]

Hi Ray,

Yes, I've heard of puns and I actually get a kick out of them. You ever hear of this one? "You can tune a piano, but you can't tune a fish." :) As you can see, a pun has two parts: the original word or phrase, and the playful or clever twist on the original. For a pun to be a pun, the twist must occur immediately after the the original, or the original must be so well know that it does not need to be spoken, e.g., the pun "You can lead a whore to culture but you can't make her think" is a twist on the well-known aphorism, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

In your example, the original and the twist are seperated by so much time and text, that it seemed absurd to think of them as a pun. Moreover, you introduced this portion of you post by calling it an example of foreshadowing. Since I'm not familiar with puns being used as foreshadowing devices, I thought you were arguing that Polonius and Hamlet were using "desert" to actually mean "dessert."

Foreshadowing, of course, is a device playwrights use to hint at upcoming events. In Act I, scene one of Hamlet, for example, the line, "something's rotten in the state of Denmark," hints at the ethical corruption about to be revealed. Playwrights often use foreshadowing to subtly prepare the audience for an event that, if it occurred without preparation, would seem melodramatic or forced. For example, it might be difficult to accept Polonius' overbearing badgering of Ophelia if earlier we hadn't him send Reynaldo to Paris to spy on Laeretes and spread false rumors about him.

So, in addition to puns, I've also heard of foreshadowing--and if I understand you correctely, you believe that when Polonius and Hamlet use the word "desert" in Act II, scene two, it's a a hidden pun that foretells Polonius will be a cake for worms. I guess the reason it's remained hidden is because the average audience member would have to perform a tortorous set of mental gymnastics to find what you've found. He or she would have to either


A) somehow grasp that Shakespeare intends for them to recognize a pun has been said and then, over two acts and 8,500 words later, recognize the unspoken twist that is buried in the image of worms eating a corpse.

or B), not realize they've just heard a foreshadowing pun, and 8,500 words and two acts later, somehow make the following connections:


Polonius was killed by Hamlet
Hamlet says worms are eating Polonius
Hey, if worms are eating Polonius, doesn't that mean that they are having a full meal? A feast? And doesn't a feast always include "dessert"? And about an hour ago, didn't Hamlet use the word "desert."
So that must mean that Shakespeare intended "desert" to be a pun on dessert (of course, Hamlet wouldn't know he was making a pun because if he did, that would mean that Hamlet knew in advance he was going to kill Polonius and that worms would eat him, and that would mean the involuntary manslaughter Hamlet committed was actually first degree murder!).

[Ray Eston Smith]

Hi Beewulf,

Thanks for your responses. Irritating as they are, they are still infinitely better than the sounds of silence. Also, irritated oysters produce great pearls, and I'm feeling very oysterlike today.

“Dessert/desert” is not directly connected to “being eaten by worms.” It’s connected to “fruit to that great feast,” which is connected to the end of a meal and “business well-ended” and “he made a good end” which is connected to Polonius’ death which is connected to “being eaten by worms” which then connects back to being the “fruit to that great feast.” The “great feast’ is the carnage Fortinbras left on the battlefield to which he was diverted. (And that feast is echoed by another when Fortinbras says, “O proud death, what feast is toward in thine eternal cell, that thou so many princes at a shot so bloodily hast struck?”) After the first viewing of the play, the death-feast motif is obvious. Alert audience members would be watching for it in their second viewing.

The lines in the play are written by Shakespeare, not by the characters. Where’s the law that says Shakespeare wasn’t allowed to communcate with the audience by putting double meanings in his character’s mouths without allowing the character’s themselves to know the hidden meanings? Especially when two of the characters (Hamlet and Ophelia) were ranting lunatics during much of the play, and a third character (Polonius) was a windbag full of empty words (which could be easily filled with double meanings).

There are two significant differences between modern audiences and Elizabethan audiences that made the latter much more attuned to word-play motifs scattered across a long play: Elizabethans had better trained memories and they were much more attentive to word play.

In Elizabethan times, primary education consisted mainly of rote memorization and recitation. Actors, by necessity, had even quicker memories than the general population. Shakespeare, as an actor-playwright, probably had a better memory than most other playwrights. Ben Jonson said of Shakespeare, "I remember, the players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out a line.” That would only be possible if Shakespeare composed his plays entirely in his head before he began to set them down on paper. Such a phenomenal memory might have caused Shakespeare to occasionally overestimate the memory capacity of his audience.

But Shakespeare never intended for everyone to understand everything: “though it make the unskilful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve; the censure of the which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of others.” Also, “a a knavish speech sleeps in a foolish ear.” It is likely that Shakespeare picked up some extra cash or gained patronage by explaining some of the more subtle points to select members of the audience, who could then show off by explaining the play to their friends. There’s a hint of this in: “We shall know by this fellow: the players cannot keep counsel; they'll tell all.” “They cannot keep counsel” hints that Shakespeare may have been irritated with his fellow actors for giving away secrets he intended to sell.

Elizabethan audiences were accustomed to looking for hidden meanings in plays. It was illegal to reference current events in plays. All plays were screened by a government censor who tried to delete topical references or who might censor the whole play due to topical content. Forbidding topical references just made them more tempting for both writers and audiences. Writers exercised their skills by trying to fool the censor while leaving enough clues to inform the audience.

Before Newton turned the world into a giant clock, people believed in the magic of words. After Newton, words had to be precise, to fit the clockwork universe. Double meanings were frowned upon. Puns became the subjects of apology rather than praise. In the 20th century, ambiguity came back into vogue (partly due to quantum mechanics). But it was mostly ambiguity for the sake of ambiguity, intentionally meaningless, rather than a vehicle for conveying multiple meanings, as in pre-Newtonian times. In Shakespeare’s day, the Celtic tradition was still strong. The Elizabethans, like their Celtic forbears, loved intricate patterns and riddles and word play. They believed that words had the power to mold the world and so they greatly admired Shakespeare for his ability to bend words to his will.

The movie “Holes” (or any episode of Seinfeld) has a structure as intricate as the structure of Hamlet. However in “Holes” (and Seinfeld), the complex web is woven from plot elements rather that word play. Modern audiences have been trained by modern writers to watch for and remember plot twists. Elizabethan ears were trained to listen for and remember word play.

[Janine]

You two still have my attention. I just have been behind the scenes and reading what you wrote. I find it all very interesting since I haven't studied the text quite this closely and yet have desired to actually. In fact, everytime the part came up about "using every man after his desert", I have indeed wondered exactly what that meant. I just don't have the time presently, nor tomorrow, to comment more closely to what each of you have pointed out. That is not lack of interest on my part. I very much wish to comment further, so be patient and I will get back to this nearer the middle or end of this week.