{"id":174,"date":"2018-08-12T11:10:18","date_gmt":"2018-08-12T18:10:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/?p=174"},"modified":"2018-09-27T21:26:54","modified_gmt":"2018-09-28T04:26:54","slug":"hamlet-and-horatio-are-in-love","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/2018\/08\/12\/hamlet-and-horatio-are-in-love\/","title":{"rendered":"Hamlet and Horatio Are In Love"},"content":{"rendered":"

Literature is often heteronormative. When a man and woman interact, people insist that one is in love with the other. That\u2019s right: Iago secretly loves Desdemona. Mercutio mocks Romeo\u2019s love for Juliet because he wants to be with Juliet himself. Rosencrantz is pining for Ophelia. Meanwhile, when two characters of the same gender might be in love, most people will never even consider the possibility. What\u2019s with the double standard?<\/span>
\n<\/p>\n

All right, I originally included Rosencrantz and Ophelia as a joke because nobody would make <\/span>that<\/span><\/i> much of a stretch, but I later discovered that the play <\/span>Rosencrantz and Guildenstern<\/span><\/i> by W. S. Gilbert (not to be confused with Tom Stoppard\u2019s play) actually does have Rosencrantz in love with Ophelia. Okay, man.<\/span><\/p>\n

Often, these heterosexual theories are viewed as interesting interpretations that contribute to the story regardless of textual support. If you propose that two guys are in love, people suddenly don\u2019t care about adding character depth. They care about the absence of definite evidence. And any evidence is brushed off as, like, really strong friendship. It can really transform your perspective to ask, \u201cIf these characters were a man and a woman, would people interpret their relationship as romantic?\u201d The answer with Hamlet and Horatio is a definite yes, and I wholeheartedly believe that this interpretation really does make <\/span>Hamlet<\/span><\/i> much more interesting\u2014and is also pretty dang accurate. My reasoning is an amalgam of research (which was tougher than I\u2019d expected since I\u2019d actually thought this interpretation was more obvious) and mostly the many things I\u2019ve noticed while reading <\/span>Hamlet<\/span><\/i> (and re-reading several parts with this idea in mind).<\/span><\/p>\n

We first see Horatio giving Hamlet a surprise visit from Wittenberg, their university. Aside from being a pretty awesome character on his own, Horatio brings out a side of Hamlet that the audience hasn\u2019t previously seen: in contrast with his former misery, Hamlet expresses how glad he is to see Horatio. Some people prefer to think of Hamlet as this perpetually-gloomy guy without room for joy or love in his tragic narrative, but I disagree. Tragedy must be contextualized by comedy. We know from the family\u2019s dialogue that Hamlet was once happy and well-adjusted, but we never witness it firsthand\u2014until Horatio gives us a hint of who Hamlet could\u2019ve been. Seeing this facet of Hamlet shows us what is lost. It shows us that things weren\u2019t supposed to be this way.<\/span><\/p>\n

HORATIO<\/span>
\n<\/span>The same, my lord, and your poor servant ever.<\/span>
\n<\/span>HAMLET<\/span>
\n<\/span>Sir, my good friend, I\u2019ll change that name with you.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is just the beginning: Hamlet un-servantzones Horatio, revealing that Horatio either already is or will later become a \u201cgood friend\u201d rather than a \u201cpoor servant.\u201d Even in these initial interactions, Shakespeare establishes that their relationship goes beyond what\u2019s expected between a prince and a regular scholar, revealing or foreshadowing their exceptional closeness.<\/span><\/p>\n

HAMLET<\/span>
\n<\/span>But what is your affair in Elsinore?…
\n<\/span>HORATIO<\/span>
\n<\/span>My lord, I came to see your father\u2019s funeral.
\n<\/span>HAMLET<\/span>
\n<\/span>I pray thee, do not mock me, fellow-student;<\/span>
\n<\/span>I think it was to see my mother’s wedding. <\/span>
\n<\/span>HORATIO<\/span>
\n<\/span>Indeed, my lord, it follow’d hard upon.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hamlet\u2019s inquiries about why Horatio is here and his jab at his mother\u2019s hasty remarriage are meant to test the waters; Horatio\u2019s agreement hints that he\u2019s on Hamlet\u2019s side. And thus it begins: Horatio\u2019s soon-to-be unwavering support for Hamlet and Hamlet\u2019s soon-to-be unwavering trust in Horatio. This is what their interactions are all about.<\/span><\/p>\n

As we start to witness, Horatio\u2019s dynamic relationship with Hamlet undergoes a unique arc when interpreted as love. Horatio\u2019s character explores the question of how strong love can be, and the story ends by showing that their bond is truly unbreakable. His love is constantly tested, but he remains loyal to Hamlet even through the misery and murder as the story progresses into extreme territory. Hamlet\u2019s character, meanwhile, explores the question of trust. He becomes more and more willing to fully trust Horatio, which is especially important in a play where almost nobody can be trusted.<\/span><\/p>\n

While this doesn\u2019t directly involve Horatio, we also receive an exchange in Act 2 Scene 2 that openly discusses the possibility of Hamlet feeling attraction towards men, albeit jokingly. During my first time reading the play, this was something that caught my attention and drew me towards the possibility.<\/span><\/p>\n

HAMLET<\/span>
\n<\/span>Man delights not me. No, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.<\/span>
\n<\/span>ROSENCRANTZ<\/span>
\n<\/span>My lord, there was no such stuff in my thoughts.<\/span>
\n<\/span>HAMLET<\/span>
\n<\/span>Why did you laugh then, when I said \u201cman delights not me\u201d?<\/span>
\n<\/span>ROSENCRANTZ<\/span>
\n<\/span>To think, my lord, if you delight not in man, what Lenten entertainment the players shall receive from you.<\/span><\/p>\n

In this scene, Hamlet is monologuing about how nothing makes him happy when he says, \u201cman delights not me.\u201d He means this in the sense that humanity can\u2019t bring him joy, but Rosencrantz interprets this as Hamlet saying he\u2019s not attracted to men and laughs. Hamlet corrects himself, clarifying with \u201cnor women neither\u201d that he means <\/span>nobody<\/span><\/i> can make him happy\u2014and that he\u2019s not talking about attraction, just general happiness. Rosencrantz says what basically amounts to, \u201cI just thought it was funny because if you were straight, how would you entertain the male actors who are visiting?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Although this scene is mostly played for laughs, I found its implications interesting, even if they aren\u2019t entirely serious: Rosencrantz laughs at the prospect of Hamlet calling himself straight. Hamlet corrects himself after accidentally implying that he\u2019s straight. Rosencrantz jokingly suggests that Hamlet being straight would be a problem because he couldn\u2019t entertain the actors. By doing so, Rosencrantz also implies that he\u2019d previously assumed that Hamlet wasn\u2019t straight and would entertain them.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a heteronormative society, all of this might seem backwards. You can probably imagine the inverse: a straight guy accidentally implies that he\u2019s gay, his friend laughs, the straight guy corrects himself, and the friend jokes about his relations with guys. The conversation is possible because both of them know or assume that the speaker is straight. Conversely, Hamlet\u2019s conversation suggests that Hamlet <\/span>isn\u2019t<\/span><\/i> straight. (Gay and straight are kind of anachronistic terms for Shakespeare\u2019s time, but you get the idea.) While this whole exchange might just be in jest, it\u2019s definitely a notable scene and only further supports such an interpretation.<\/span><\/p>\n

As for Hamlet and Horatio, their love becomes more evident later on compared to their initial conversations\u2014Act 3 Scene 2 is particularly notable. In fact, the whole possibility of a romantic interpretation originally struck me when I was first reading this scene.<\/span><\/p>\n

HAMLET
\n<\/span>What ho, Horatio!
\n<\/span>HORATIO
\n<\/span>Here, sweet lord, at your service.<\/span>
\n<\/span>HAMLET
\n<\/span>Horatio, thou art e’en as just a man
\n<\/span>As e’er my conversation coped withal.<\/span><\/p>\n

Horatio enters the scene and Hamlet basically tells him, in the words of No Fear Shakespeare, \u201cHoratio, you\u2019re the best man I\u2019ve ever known.\u201d Pretty self-explanatory. It\u2019s also worth noting Horatio\u2019s address to Hamlet: \u201csweet lord.\u201d Considering that \u201csweet\u201d sometimes carries romantic and feminine connotations, it\u2019s an interesting choice for describing a prince, although other characters (Osric) also use this for Hamlet.<\/span><\/p>\n

HAMLET
\n<\/span>Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice<\/span>
\n<\/span>And could of men distinguish, her election<\/span>
\n<\/span>Hath sealed thee for herself.<\/span><\/p>\n

No Fear Shakespeare translates this line as, \u201cEver since I\u2019ve been a free agent in my choice of friends, I\u2019ve chosen you.\u201d The idea of Hamlet choosing Horatio is pretty telling. However, there\u2019s romantic subtext here that this modern translation doesn\u2019t capture, and it\u2019s so obvious that I can\u2019t believe I missed it until like my fifth time reading this monologue: Hamlet\u2019s choice of metaphor is that of a mistress choosing a romantic partner. And he\u2019s really blurring the lines here between making a metaphor and straight-up actually saying that his soul has chosen Horatio in a romantic sense. To the point where this honestly reads more like a confession of love than a declaration of his chosen friends (seriously, read it again).<\/span><\/p>\n

HAMLET
\n<\/span>Give me that man<\/span>
\n<\/span>That is not passion\u2019s slave, and I will wear him<\/span>
\n<\/span>In my heart\u2019s core, ay, in my heart of heart,<\/span>
\n<\/span>As I do thee.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hamlet tells Horatio that he keeps him in his heart\u2019s core. In his heart of hearts. Again, pretty self-explanatory.<\/span><\/p>\n

HAMLET
\n<\/span>Something too much of this.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve read various interpretations of this line by actual <\/span>Hamlet<\/span><\/i> actors and directors, including that they had just previously been leaning in to kiss, that they actually kissed, that Horatio was hoping for Hamlet to kiss him, or that \u201cthis\u201d refers to the intimacy of Hamlet\u2019s words. Take your pick.<\/span><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t worry, I\u2019m not forgetting about Ophelia here. Obviously, Hamlet and Horatio aren\u2019t the only characters who share romantic feelings. I don\u2019t believe that these two relationships (Hamlet and Horatio \/ Hamlet and Ophelia) detract from each other; on the contrary, they contextualize each other and provide points for comparison. You\u2019ve heard of Horatio and Rosencrantz\/Guildenstern serving as foils for each other, but what about Horatio and Ophelia?<\/span><\/p>\n

There\u2019s no doubt that Hamlet loves both men and women, considering his strong feelings for Ophelia, although the sincerity or superficiality of this particular relationship is debatable. Things get pretty messy between them, and despite his claims, I honestly don\u2019t believe that Hamlet loves her as much as he believes. (You care about Ophelia more than forty thousand brothers could? Please.) These two relationships serve as foils for each other: where Hamlet\u2019s relationship with Ophelia is depicted as passionate but confusing and unhealthy, Hamlet\u2019s relationship with Horatio is sincere, consistent, and characterized by trust. After all, Hamlet and Horatio are both lovers <\/span>and<\/span><\/i> best friends, which is the most genuine kind of relationship there is. Take note.<\/span><\/p>\n

The difference between these relationships can be captured in something as simple as Hamlet\u2019s letters. Our prince signs his love letter to Ophelia with, \u201cThine evermore most dear lady, whilst this machine is to him, Hamlet.\u201d While dramatic and emotional, there\u2019s nothing in Hamlet\u2019s proclamation of love that signifies trust or a strong mutual bond, making his feelings seem shallow. Although the poetry is definitely passionate, it\u2019s also pretty generic, as Hamlet doesn\u2019t really know or understand her. This is a far cry from his sign-off to Horatio, which is sweet and simple but reveals a much closer unspoken mutual understanding: \u201cHe that thou knowest thine, Hamlet.\u201d\u2014in modern English, \u201cHe whom you know is yours.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

While I do believe that Hamlet has strong feelings for Ophelia, the interactions that we actually see are mostly performative. Things like Hamlet mostly-feigning madness. There\u2019s very little honesty or open communication involved, and Ophelia is pretty confused with him most of the time. Conversely, Horatio is Hamlet\u2019s sole confidant, and the guy tells him <\/span>everything<\/span><\/i>. In a story where our protagonist is constantly putting on a show for others, his conversations with Horatio show us what Hamlet is really thinking. It\u2019s fitting for a play about theatre itself\u2014if Elsinore is the stage for everyone\u2019s false pretenses, you could say that Horatio lets us look behind the scenes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Because this narrative is filled with terrible relationships, Hamlet\u2019s relationship with Horatio also provides necessary contrast. It\u2019s really the only positive relationship in the play; otherwise you just have Hamlet and Ophelia, Gertrude and Claudius, and Gertrude and King Hamlet. Although the textual interactions between Gertrude and her lovers are limited, both of her relationships are framed negatively, not to mention that Claudius indirectly kills her.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ultimately, the play\u2019s comparisons between Hamlet\u2019s interactions with Ophelia and Horatio reveal the important difference between passion and love. Within the narrative of <\/span>Hamlet<\/span><\/i>, passion is destructive, ultimately resulting in distrust, emotional pain, and chaos. Love is productive, fostering trust, support, and positive decisions. Seriously, Hamlet <\/span>causes<\/span><\/i> Ophelia to actually die and <\/span>prevents<\/span><\/i> Horatio from dying at the end of the play.<\/span><\/p>\n

HORATIO
\n<\/span>Goodnight, sweet prince,
\n<\/span>And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest.<\/span><\/p>\n

Truly iconic.<\/span><\/p>\n

The relationship concludes with this memorable line, providing both comforting words and beautiful images of angels amidst death and grief. We also observe some historically significant diction here with \u201cthee\u201d and \u201cthy,\u201d which were less formal than their polite alternatives in this time period, \u201cyou\u201d and \u201cyour.\u201d The fact that Horatio remains informal with someone of such high status speaks to their closeness\u2014indeed, Horatio is more than just \u201c[Hamlet\u2019s] poor servant.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Although my interpretation was never meant to center authorial intent, it\u2019s also worth asking, how does Shakespeare himself play into all of this? As you might know, William Shakespeare was what we\u2019d now probably consider bisexual and wrote many of his sonnets (including <\/span>Shall I Compare Thee to a Summer\u2019s Day?<\/span><\/i>) for a man, most likely the Earl of Pembroke. With this in mind, part of me wants to believe that there\u2019s no way Shakespeare could have missed the subtext of <\/span>Hamlet<\/span><\/i>, especially because Shakespeare\u2019s work is built upon subtext. Plays back then were frequently censored because Elizabethan England was a police state, so to give himself plausible deniability, Shakespeare buried unacceptable elements in layers of subtlety (and often jokes\/wordplay). Because it\u2019s a play about plays and a performance about performances, this idea holds especially true in <\/span>Hamlet<\/span><\/i>, where the protagonist similarly hides his general insolence in subtle riddles and puns\u2014after all, it\u2019s not socially acceptable to sass the king. Considering that Shakespeare was a master of writing and interpreting the implicit, it\u2019s interesting to consider that he might\u2019ve known that their relationship could be seen as romantic whether he intended for this or not. And maybe he did intend it.<\/span><\/p>\n

No, there aren\u2019t any sappy marriage proposals, or eloquent sonnets, or the typical signs of romance we\u2019ve seen in some of Shakespeare\u2019s straight couples. But this unconventional reading of <\/span>Hamlet<\/span><\/i> is not only viable, but conducive to thinking about the play in new ways. The perspective brings to light a beautiful (if somewhat dark, considering the murders and all that) narrative about the development of loyalty and trust as two people fall in love. It highlights valuable themes surrounding love and passion, providing a positive example of healthy love in comparison with the play\u2019s other passionate but insincere relationships. It provides a new lens for these characters\u2019 interactions, complicating more traditional heterosexual interpretations. Personally, I believe in my heart of hearts that Hamlet and Horatio are in love.<\/span><\/p>\n

Check out parts one and three of my\u00a0Hamlet<\/em>\u00a0series:
\nThe Irony of Hamlet\u2019s Fatal Virtues<\/a>
\nThe Divergence Between Hamlet and Ophelia<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Literature is often heteronormative. When a man and woman interact, people insist that one is in love with the other. That\u2019s right: Iago secretly loves Desdemona. Mercutio mocks Romeo\u2019s love for Juliet because he wants to be with Juliet himself. Rosencrantz is pining for Ophelia. Meanwhile, when two characters of the same gender might be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":175,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-literature"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=174"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":206,"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174\/revisions\/206"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/175"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ceruleanchameleon.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}