Neither a borrower nor a lender be;Polonius, Hamlet, I.3.75-77
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
I go back and forth on whether or not I agree with this Shakespearean wisdom. To my mind, there are two possible interpretations of the sentiment. The first is an observation that lending money or other items between friends can cause rancor and difficulties if the loan is not repaid or is otherwise delayed. This view I have no trouble with, as I have observed such deterioration before.
My problem is with a second, broader interpretation, that may be more accurately described as "beholden to no man." This is the idea that it is possible, even desirable to go through life without being in anyone's social debt, or incurring such social debt oneself (I use "social" to distinguish from monetary debt). I cannot help but feel that such a philosophy risks a very limited view of human experience. By illustration, I contrast this with John Donne's famous "No man is an island, entire unto itself." (Meditation XVII).
Of course, given that this is Polonius speaking, I might be taking it at face value when Shakespeare intended the opposite reception. However, I've heard it proffered as serious advice, so that's the manner in which I am responding to it.
