For what reasons is Polonius sending Reynaldo to Paris? What does this imply about their relationship? What are your thoughts about this action?

Polonius sends Reynaldo to spy on Laertes by pretending to send him to deliver a letter and some money.

This shows that the master and servant have a confident, full trust on each other. Polonius trusted him enough to send him for an intimate family affair.

This act shows that Polonius seems to have a hold, or even tries to control, what his children do, and even over his servants, who are all 'supposed' to obey his commands.

Explanation:

In Act II scene i of the play "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare, Polonius had decided to send his servant Reynaldo to Paris to deliver some money and also a letter to Laertes. But the real reason for this trip was to send Reynaldo to see if Laertes is really doing what he is supposed to do or he's just wasting his time around. In simple words, Reynaldo was sent to spy on Laertes by his father Polonius.

This shows that the relationship of Reynaldo and his master Polonius was a relationship of trust, true and of full confidence. Polonius seems to trust his servant with full confidence, sending him on an intimate private family matter.

This act of Polonius sending someone to spy on his son shows that he did not trust his son to be on the right path. Also, it shows how much authority he can wield over his children, and also over his servant too.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )

answer; i believe that the correct answer is ( rivers);