Work Text:
Hamlet and Horatio's interactions are a vague and relatively minor aspect of the play when compared to the wide horizon of other topics it touches upon; wether it be suicide, revenge, heteronormative romance, moral ambiguity and whatnot. However, when reading in between the lines of the two's interactions alongside the playout of the tragedy - one can almost sense a connection, similar to dots connecting. It's a given fact that Shakespeare's most renowned work has more than a few loose ends, and while it is true that one can simply reason with it being due to the age in which it was written in; one can also try and tie these loose ends with a theory - a theory specifically concerning Hamlet and Horatio, and their arcane relationship. Why was Hamlet so hesitant to take action? Why does he treat Ophelia the way he does? Feats and loose ends such as these can be justified in many ways; one of which is the idea of Hamlet and Horatio's relationship being closer and more intimate than initially thought. The idea that, perhaps, Hamlet has been in love with Horatio throughout the entirety of the play, going mad as time goes on due to the inaccessibility to three of the things most dearest to him; his father ('killed*), his mother (*stained*) and lastly - his beloved whom he can never be with due to societal norms.
The reason for Hamlet's hesitance to take action has been a subject of debate ever since the release of the play, as it's never been explicitly depicted. One aspect of the plot which may lead to a solid answer are the interactions between Hamlet and Horatio. As can be seen through the layout of the plot, the two seem to spend significant time together throughout the entire 'revenge' scheme; going as far as to visit Ophelia's grave together. Coupled with the fact that Hamlet postpones action quite a lot, what if it were so that he wanted to spend more time with Horatio and he simply used this scenario as an opportunity to get closer to him? The heteronormative pressures of society were already more prominent back then than it is today and coupled with royal duties, such as producing an heir, it'd be extremely difficult for Hamlet to be together with a man. According to Laertes, Hamlet's will is 'not his own' (1.3.17) and he cannot 'carve for himself" (1.3.20) - this further solidifies the idea that Hamlet cannot just marry whoever he wants. Additionally, Hamlet and Ophelia's odd push and pull relationship also sheds more light onto this situation; ever notice how bold Hamlet acts with Ophelia in public but is more reserved with her in private, almost as if keeping her at an arm's length? For example, before the performance of The Mousetrap, amidst the eyes of the people, Hamlet refuses Gertrude's offer to sit next to her and instead sits with Ophelia; telling Gertrude that there was 'metal more attractive' (3.2.97). He then proceeds to openly flirt with her through suggestive jokes involving 'thoughts that lie between maids legs' (3.2.105) and asking her if he should "lay his head in her lap' (3.2. 99-101). Another public instance where he acts in a similar manner takes place at her grave, where he talks about how 'forty thousand brothers could not, with all their quantity of love' (5.1. 236-238) make up his sum. He makes dramatic exclamations on how his sorrow would make him 'eat a crocodile' (5.1.243) in an almost theatrical manner; as if he wants the world to see how much he loved Ophelia - while masking the true nature of his sexual orientation. In private, however, he is much more different. When Ophelia goes to return the gifts Hamlet gave to her in the past, he first tells her that he did 'love her once' (3.1.114) but later on changes it to 'I loved you not' (3.1.117). From this interaction alone, Hamlet's dilemma of what manner he should act towards Ophelia can be seen. In public, he's very demonstrative - almost theatrical; but in private, he's uncertain. Perhaps he's paranoid because he doesn't know whether he has an audience or not, and this places him on edge. It wouldn't be difficult to put it past him, Hamlet is awfully perceptive - and he has caught Polonius watching him before, so he knows he could be spied on. Afterwards, Hamlet tells Ophelia that she is not suitable for marriage and that it's better than being a 'breeder of sinners' (3.1. 119-120) - sidenote, the word 'breeder' is actually slang that's specifically used by queers to refer to women who have birthed too many children; is that a coincidence? Probably, but it's still some food for thought. In short, Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship is a consequence of conservative societal belief; and is likely the reason for his strange mannerisms toward her.
If Hamlet did hold such overbearing love for Horatio as you say, I hear some readers ask, why isn't it openly depicted in the play? Well, homosexuality was a very taboo subject; Shakespeare probably couldn't have directly written anything between the two without getting the death penalty. And also, who's to say it wasn't depicted in the play? Shakespeare may not have blatantly spelled it out for the audience; however, that doesn't rule out the possibility of him using indirect forms to show it. The soliloquy Hamlet has right after he announces the performance of The Murder of Gonzago is a rather interesting one, for example. The main idea of the soliloquy is Hamlet recognising his inability to show emotion while comparing himself to an actor from the troupe. He finds it ironic that an actor can 'force his soul so to his own conceit' (2.2.505), weep and cry all for nothing; all for fiction, for a 'dream of passion' (2.2.504). Alongside this, he claims that had the actor had 'the motive and the cue for passion' (2.2.513) that he did; he would 'drown the stage with tears' (2.2.514) and 'amaze the very faculties of eyes and ears' (2.2.518). He questions whether he's a coward for not being able to speak up and express himself, claiming that he 'lacks gall' (2.2.529) and is 'pigeon-livered' (2.2.529). The emotion Hamlet yearns to express here can be many things; his conflicting emotions regarding Claudius, grief for his father, contempt for his mother - but the common point amongst all these things is that they're all seen as natural things to express, there's no known external factor preventing Hamlet from showing them; whatever turmoil he has, it's all internal. However, if the feeling Hamlet wanted to express was, say, his love for Horatio - that'd be a completely different story. If this scenario were to be true, Hamlet's struggles would make much more sense; for he would have dire consequences to face should he reveal his secret. Hamlet's letter to Claudius is another particular detail worth mentioning, especially the wording behind it. 'You shall know ! am set naked on your kingdom' (4.7. 43-44) he writes - well isn't 'set naked' a bit of a strange term to use here? The phrase 'set naked' quite literally means going bare, an act of revealing a secret - perhaps it could mean coming out as queer? But coming out as queer in that time and age would be akin to certain death, suicide more or less - but perhaps this is what Hamlet contemplates during his 'to be, or not to be' (3.1.56) soliloquy. What if instead of contemplating suicide, Hamlet's contemplating on coming out? In this case coming out would be analogous to suicide, and ending 'the heart-ache that flesh is heir to' (3.1.63) would be analogous to finally acknowledging his growing feelings for Horatio; this is probably what Hamlet refers to when he mentions the 'pangs of disprized love' (3.1.72) a couple lines later. This may sound like a stretch when compared to the other things he's gone through that may make him want to end it all - however, do keep in mind that Hamlet is famous for taking great enjoyment in the play of words; as is seen from his jokes with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, so it's not exactly an impossible scenario either. One last thing worth mentioning is the final interaction between Hamlet and Horatio. Hamlet, in his final moments, is held in the arms of Horatio as he embraces the cruel arms of death. He tells Horatio not to commit suicide in light of all the tragedies, to live and tell his story - and in the end, when Hamlet passes on, Horatio bids him goodnight and calls him 'sweet prince'. The scene is heartfelt, tragic - and seems to have this aura similar to the literary trope of dying in a lover's arms. The idea of suicide after witnessing the death of someone cherished alongside the tragic intense, perhaps romantic exchange of words gives this scene a strange resemblance to the story of Romeo and Juliet. That'd make sense, since both were written by the same playwright, however it is quite odd to see Shakespeare reusing this trope — a trope he'd previously used for a play about two lovers. Coincidence? I think not. In short; it's safe to say that reading in between the lines of soliloquies, interactions and intertextual relationships and reinterpreting these aspects provides further leverage and evidence for this theory, as can be seen from the various examples and analyses given above.
In conclusion, the idea of Hamlet and Horatio being romantically affiliated ties a lot of loose ends and answers a lot of previously disregarded questions. It provides a new window of oppurtunity for the play in terms of its genre, fulfilling all of its requirements to be a romantic tragedy like Romeo and Juliet, for example. Fundamentally, the story remains the same; a man who couldn't take action and suffered the consequences of not doing so, but it induces a major change on the context behind it. It provides many new perspectives and clarity on previously ambiguous happenings, and a new method of interpretation for Hamlet's psyche. Hamlet has recently lost the three major figures of his life; his mother, his father and his beloved - in his own way, he has lost all the love he could ever receive — and that's what drives him to madness, and later on his death. There may be solid pieces of evidence justifying this theory, but it's important to acknowledge that this is not the only plausible theory out there. I believe that's the beauty behind Hamlet - the way it's so open to interpretation, so ambiguous. The vast number of loose ends and uncertainty makes way for countless things to theorize on - and I'd like to think, in a way, that was what Shakespeare intended when he had written it.
Source(s)
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Cambridge University Press. Rex Gibson, Richard Andrews (Ed.)