Heck 1

Emma Heck

ENG 489W Final Paper

Dr. Knecht

December 4, 2020

Misogyny and Internalized Homophobia: The Real Tragedy of Hamlet

A couple years ago, while attending a lecture about ​Hamlet,​ one of my classmates asked

the speaker if there was anything he did not like about what is arguably Shakespeare’s most

famous play. His reply was simple: Hamlet’s misogyny. The speaker explained that while he

loved ​Hamlet​’s ability to transport him to another world, he was bothered by the way that

Hamlet treated women. Hamlet’s misogyny towards Gertrude and Ophelia is not a new topic of

discussion; it is apparent to anyone who reads or watches the play. Scholars have written

extensively about the play’s misogyny. Hamlet acts with hatred and disgust towards not only his

mother, but also his love interest, Ophelia. There has also been scholarship which discusses the

possibility that Hamlet was actually in love with his male friend, Horatio. Considering these two

ideas— Hamlet’s misogyny and queerness—in conjunction with one another, bring up the

possibility that Hamlet’s hatred of women may come, in part, from his own homosexuality and

internalized homophobia. Particularly, Hamlet may feel anger towards women that stems from

the inability to be in a relationship with Horatio the way that he was expected to be with Ophelia.

A careful examination of Hamlet’s relationships with Ophelia, Horatio, and Osric provide

support for the idea that his misogyny was a combination of both tense relations with his mother

and the culture of the time, as has been widely suggested, as well as his own queerness.

In his book ​The Tainted Muse,​ scholar and critic Robert Brustein goes into great detail

about the misogyny present throughout Shakespeare’s works, dubbing it “The Hamlet
 Heck 2

Obsession.” In fact, he begins this chapter by stating that out of all of Shakespeare’s plays,

“Shakespearean sex hatred” is on display most prominently in ​Hamlet​ (“Misogyny” 13). The

Hamlet Obsession, explains Brustein, is a term for the numerous, frequent sexist assaults on

womens’ “imagined (and sometimes real) departures from virtue” in Shakespeare’s body of work

(20). In other words, this phenomenon describes misogynistic attacks on female characters,

prompted by their actions (or inactions) that the male characters perceive as unvirtuous. He also

points out that most of the time, the woman in question has not actually committed unvirtuous

acts, but that when she has, the male character usually places the blame on women as a whole

rather than the individual (“Misogyny” 18 and 20). This specific characteristic of The Hamlet

Obsession comes from Hamlet’s tendency to project his disgust with his mother, Gertrude, onto

all women; most evident when he exclaims “Frailty! Thy name is Woman,” out of anger at

Gertrude’s ability to move on from the death of his father so quickly (Shakespeare 1.2.146).

“The Hamlet Obsession” chapter explores Hamlet’s treatment of Ophelia and Gertrude both in

the context of the play and in its historical context. Brustein notes that Hamlet’s attacks on

Ophelia are shaped by a paradox of the time—the idea that beauty necessarily corrupts women.

Women’s vices (which Hamlet personifies through Ophelia), he argues, are the cause of

Hamlet’s madness, and takes this argument further when he says that the most common

explanation of Hamlet’s misogyny is Freudian. In short, Brustein makes the claim that Hamlet

sees his mother’s incestuous, “hasty” marriage as a betrayal of both his dead father and himself,

assumes that all women are like his mother, and takes his anger out on Ophelia (Brustein 14-15).

In fact, his disgust with Gertude leads to an overall disillusionment with women in general. So,

while misogyny is certainly part of the explanation for Hamlet’s poor treatment of Ophelia, the

full reasoning is more complicated and less obvious. Hamlet’s hatred of women is also
 Heck 3

influenced in part by his relationship with Horatio. Although Hamlet and Horatio’s relationship

may seem like a standard renaissance male friendship on the surface, a closer reading of their

interactions reveals that it was likely more than this. Examining their friendship in comparison

with Hamlet and Ophelia’s relationship can aid readers in understanding Hamlet’s motivations

more deeply.

J. Duncan Spaeth does just this in his article “Horatio’s Hamlet.” He suggests that

Shakespeare (and Hamlet himself) want Hamlet to be remembered as Horatio knew him, and

based on Spaeth’s analysis, it is fair to assume that Horatio likely knew him better than anyone

(37). It is for this reason that looking more closely at their friendship can reveal more details

about how Hamlet operates, especially with regard to Ophelia. Recognizing the scholarly

conversation about whether there were homoerotic feelings between the two, Spaeth does not

come to a conclusive opinion on the matter, but tells his readers that it is up to them to uncover

Shakespeare’s intention and meaning “in the Hamlet-Horatio relationship” (39). So, while

Horatio knew Hamlet intimately, he was not nearly as familiar, as Spaeth points out, with

Ophelia (38). The text supports this belief. Horatio and Ophelia rarely interact. Yet, we know

from Horatio’s conversation with Gertrude that he thinks Ophelia is a distraction to Hamlet who

will only lead him further into madness (Shakespeare 4.5.2-3). As stated, Spaeth does not

decisively say if Hamlet was indeed gay or straight (although, these words would not have been

used to describe sexuality at the time). After a close reading of seven Hamlet-Horatio

interactions, he leaves his readers with a statement that suggests he feels that the pair were more

than just friends: “Hamlet is saved by his love for Horatio.” Additionally, he claims that their

relationship is so strong that it touches our hearts, evoking our senses of pity, awe, and human
 Heck 4

affection (Spaeth 47). Certainly a merely platonic friendship would not elicit such strong

emotions from the audience.

If we are to understand Hamlet and Horatio’s relationship as something more than a

typical example of renaissance male friendship, their relationship must be examined both in

terms of their conversations and actions and also in regard to what was left unsaid between them.

Some of the conversations they did not have reveal as much information as their actual dialogue

with each other. For example, Hamlet and Horatio do not discuss Ophelia, Hamlet’s lover, even

at her death. After Hamlet finds out from the others that the gravediggers are preparing for

Ophelia’s body, he exclaims and jumps into the grave to fight with Laertes. In an attempt to

console Hamlet, Horatio calls out to him, saying, “Good my lord, be quiet” (Shakespeare

5.1.47-55). When Hamlet has regained his composure, Claudius asks Horatio to look after

Hamlet, and the two never mention the fact that Hamlet’s lover has just died. Hamlet and

Horatio, supposedly the best of friends, refuse to discuss Ophelia at any point, even during her

burial and directly afterwards when they are alone. In fact, when her burial is over, Hamlet “does

not appear to give Ophelia another thought, being more concerned with informing Horatio about

the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern” (“Misogyny” 18). Their disregard for Ophelia

would be less peculiar if Horatio were not aware of Ophelia’s existence or her relationship with

Hamlet, but Hamlet clearly states in front of Horatio that he loved Ophelia (Shakespeare

5.1.259). The most interesting part about Hamlet’s profession of love is not that he had

previously told Ophelia he never truly loved her, but that he frames it as familial love: “I loved

Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not, with all their quantity of love, make up my

sum—What wilt thou do for her? (Shakespeare 3.1.119-120 and 5.1.259-261). By comparing his

love for Ophelia to the love a brother has for a sister, he removes the romantic aspect of their
 Heck 5

relationship. He does not show this familial love with Ophelia at any other point during the play,

suggesting that he could have chosen to frame it this way to show Horatio that it was “nothing

serious,” or that the love he has for Horatio was never extended to Ophelia (which, by his own

admission, it likely was not). The idea that this was a display of familial love also fits in with

Hamlet’s confession in 3.1 that he never loved Ophelia, to which Ophelia replied she had been

deceived (Shakespeare 3.1.121). Thus, it can be deduced that Hamlet was not in romantic love

with Ophelia and that framing his emotions for her as brotherly love was an act of respect to

Horatio—the person whom he truly loves.

The Hamlet-Horatio interactions in the play are plentiful, but perhaps a few of the most

informative are found in Acts 1, 3, 4, and 5. Act 1.4, when the ghost of Hamlet’s father appears,

exhibits Horatio’s willingness to protect Hamlet.

MARCELLUS. But do not go with it.

HORATIO. No, by no means.

HAMLET. It will not speak. Then will I follow it.

HORATIO. Do not, my lord.

HAMLET. Why, what should be the fear? (Shakespeare 1.4.41-45).

Horatio’s fear is that the ghost will trick Hamlet, leading him into a flood, off a cliff, or

otherwise to his demise (Shakespeare 1.4.48-53). It is clear that Horatio is adamant about

protecting Hamlet and is anxious about his safety. He even urges Hamlet to stay behind once

more in the subsequent lines. Although Horatio’s concerns are not enough to keep Hamlet from

meeting with his ghostly father, the acts that follow put on full display the trust Hamlet has in

Horatio. In Act 3, for example, the audience learns that Hamlet trusts Horatio with the details of

his scheme to catch Claudius’s conscience during the play (Shakespeare 3.2.70-82). It is notable
 Heck 6

that Hamlet trusts Horatio with both the encounter with the ghost and with the plot against

Claudius, yet never mentions either to Ophelia, his supposed lover and future wife. His exclusion

of Ophelia from his plans is not unexplanatory, though, given that we know that Hamlet does not

find women trustworthy or virtuous. Since Gertrude lost his trust when she married his uncle, all

women lost Hamlet’s trust; another sign of the disenchantment Hamlet has for women.

Moreover, the language Hamlet uses with Horatio in this scene hints further at homoerotic

feelings between the two.

HORATIO. Here, sweet lord, at your service.

HAMLET. Horatio, thou art e’en as just a man

As e’er my conversation coped withal. (Shakespeare 3.2.48-50).

Shakespeare scholar Jonathan Crewe suggests as much in his article “Reading Horatio,” which

provides a close reading of the lines above, specifically Hamlet’s couplet. Crewe breaks down

these lines, beginning with the word “e’en,” claiming that the word “brings its own connotations

of regularity and balance to Hamlet’s characterization of Horatio as ‘just’” and simultaneously

serves “as an intensifier of Hamlet’s compliment” (273). While one could read these lines as an

example of Renaissance constructions of masculine friendship, Crewe says not to dismiss the

influence of “the homoerotics of Hamlet’s attachment to Horatio” (273). In fact, the ​OED

informs us that at the time, “conversation” could be thought of as sexual or carnal. Definitions

of early modern conversation front the ​OED​ include “intercourse, society, intimacy; circle of

acquaintance, company, society; sexual intercourse or intimacy.” The word “coped” also had

sexual connotations at the time: “to meet with; to come into contact, touch, or relation with”

(Crewe 272). Crewe shares the sentiment that there seemed to be sexual feelings between
 Heck 7

Hamlet and Horatio as evidenced by Hamlet’s word choice in this couplet. Later in this same

scene provides even more support for this sentiment, where Hamlet says:

Give me that man

That is not passion’s slave, and I will wear him

In my heart’s core, ay, in my heart of heart,

As I do thee (Shakespeare 3.2.66-69).

It is not difficult to deduce the meaning of Hamlet telling Horatio that he wears him in his heart.

For most people, such a statement is not something we would imagine saying to someone who is

nothing more than a friend to us. Hamlet cares about Horatio deeply because Horatio is

continuously loyal to him; he is not swayed by passion or other outside sources. In sum, Hamlet

lets Horatio know that his dedication to him is what has led him to Hold Horatio in his heart.

In Act 4, the audience gets yet another glimpse into the attachment that Hamlet feels for

Horatio in his letter from England. As Spaeth points out, the letter scene reaffirms that Horatio

is the person whom Hamlet trusted most. It is worth asking: why was Ophelia not who Hamlet

trusted most? Possibly because Ophelia was not really “his;” she did not belong to Hamlet.

They were never attached in the same way that Hamlet is to Horatio, in such a meaningful way

that Hamlet uses more romantic language with Horatio than he ever did with Ophelia. The

feelings they based their relationship on were not as strong or as real as those of Hamlet and

Horatio. The contents of the letter are not incredibly important to the development of the

Hamlet-Horatio relationship, but Hamlet’s valediction is significant. It reads: “He that thou

knowest thine, Hamlet” (Shakespeare 4.6.28-29). The closing of Hamlet’s letter could not be

more representative of what one would say to their lover. It is essentially saying that Horatio

should know he is his; that he is his closest confidant.

 Heck 8

The conclusion of Act 5 offers one of the final key Hamlet-Horatio interactions. Hamlet

addresses Horatio as he is dying, and begs Horatio to keep his memory alive. Specifically, to

create for Hamlet a legacy that remembers him as Horatio knew him, which is to say better than

anyone.

HAMLET. If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart,

Absent thee from felicity awhile,

And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain,

To tell my story (Shakespeare 5.2.299-302).

In other words, Hamlet basically says to Horatio that if he truly loves and cares for Hamlet, he

will share the real Hamlet with the world. If these sound like the last words of a dying lover, then

Horatio’s reply is even more so the response of a lover. “Now cracks a noble heart. Good night,

sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest” (Shakespeare 5.2.312-13). First, it is

noteworthy that this is one of multiple instances where Horatio describes Hamlet as “sweet.” In

fact, he calls him “sweet lord” in one of their aforementioned interactions. Jeffrey Masten, in his

article on queerness in early modern male friendship, suggests people should pay more attention

to Horatio’s use of “sweet” (369). According to the article, the historical queerness of “sweet” in

early modern language provides an account of the word used between men “in a way that now

seems to offend against normative codes of gender,” adding that men now perceive sweetness as

“effeminizing” (Masten 370). So, when thinking about the sweetness that Hamlet and Horatio

use to describe each other, some people may read it as typical sweetness between male friends in

the period. However, audiences should not assume, as they usually do, that this is yet another

nonerotic male friendship (Masten 371). Masten prefers to compare the Hamlet-Horatio

relationship to relationships that were “more clearly erotically charged,” and presents a quote
 Heck 9

from ​Two Gentlemen a​ s an example, which says “I knew him as my selfe: from our Infancie /

We haue conuerst, and spent our howres together” (​Two Gentlemen ​qtd. in Masten 371-72). He

writes that in relationships like Hamlet and Horatio’s (one which are erotically charged), the

rhetoric focuses on “identicality, indistinguishability, and interchangeability” (Masten 371). Such

interchangeability occurs in Hamlet when he first reunites with Horatio:

HAMLET. Horatio —or I do forget myself.

HORATIO. The same, my lord, and your poor servant ever.

HAMLET. Sir, my good friend—I’ll change that name with you.

(Shakespeare 1.2.161-63)

Thus, Hamlet and Horatio’s relationship fulfills the quality of erotic male friendships of being

based on a rhetoric of interchangeability. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the sweetness

seen with Hamlet-Horatio is something more meaningful and less platonic than the sweetness

typical of early modern male friendship.

If readers still have a hard time imagining that the Hamlet-Horatio relationship and

interactions constitute nothing more than close friendship, consider the words of William Van

Watson: “For the better part of four centuries, the same Shakespearean scholars who have

praised the bard for his almost universal understanding of human psychology have been intent on

straightjacketing his concept of human sexuality into a limited and conformist heterosexual

polarity” (308). His article “Shakespeare, Zeffirelli, and the Homosexual Gaze” urges audiences

of Hamlet to think outside rigid gender and sexuality norms and accept that homosexuality was

very likely present in Shakespeare. That is to say, if we are willing to admit Shakespeare’s

incredible ability to create stories that transcend time, resonating with people across centuries,

then we should agree that Shakespeare was intelligent and in touch with human nature in such a
 Heck 10

way that allowed him to create homoerotic feelings between his characters. Brustein agrees with

Van Watson on the matter. He states that Shakespeare’s writings containing misogyny and

homoeroticism were the insights “of a keen analyst of power and gender,” of a man who had the

ability to write “plays that are extremely modern in regard to race, class, and gender”

(“Misogyny 23). Just because such relationships were considered taboo during the time period

in which Shakespeare was active does not preclude him from writing about them in a minimized

capacity. In regards to Horatio’s final words to Hamlet, Van Watson sums up his view on

whether they were merely platonic or if they were in fact homoerotic with this thought:

“Shakespeare's Horatio and Hamlet share at least a true Renaissance friendship, if not more, a

relationship of such intimate intensity that by the end of the play Horatio wants to accompany

Hamlet in death, threatening his own suicide” (320). Van Watson says “if not more,” but based

on the combined analyses of Spaeth, Masten, and Crewe, it is safe to say it was indeed more. But

just as readers have come to terms with the homoeroticism of the Hamlet-Horatio relationship,

they are forced to reckon with what seems to be a mockery of queer men.

Undoubtedly, some readers of ​Hamlet​ may find it troubling to situate Hamlet’s queerness

with his mockery of Osric, a courtier who displays more feminine characteristics. After all, if

Hamlet is comfortable being effeminate with Horatio, as demonstrated by Masten, why would

similar qualities in Osric offend him? Conveniently, Brustein’s book addresses the interactions

between Hamlet and Osric in his chapter titled “Effemiphobia: The Osric Courtier.” Osric “best

represents Shakespeare’s idea of the flowery and effeminate upstart courtier,” Brustein claims

(“Effemiphobia” 54). If Hamlet himself is queer, why would he continually mock Osric for his

effeminate qualities, qualities which would typically have been associated with queer men? One

explanation could be Hamlet’s own misogyny. Because Osric embodies feminine qualities, and
 Heck 11

because Hamlet projects his hatred of Gertrude on to all women and even on to anything

feminine, Osric, though not a woman, becomes a target for his misogyny. Or, as Brustein more

succinctly puts it, “misogyny recapitulates androgyny: Fear and hatred of the female sex can

often be accompanied by confusion about male identity” (“Effemiphobia” 57). Hamlet’s

mockery of Osric’s effemininty does not detract from the possibility of a homoerotic relationship

between he and Horatio. Crewe, agreeing with Brustein, suggests that cultural misogyny plays a

part in Hamlet’s actions. Since Hamlet considers Horatio to be just, and believes that women

cannot be just, then Horatio is “implicitly not-woman” to Hamlet (Crewe 273). Thus, another

potential explanation for why Hamlet is able to love Horatio while simultaneously ridiculing

Osric; he simply does not associate Horatio with those characteristics.

Having established that Hamlet’s queerness actually existed and was a part of his

relationship with Horatio, it is worth taking another look at some of the misogyny he exhibits

toward his mother. Also, as aforementioned, Gertrude’s actions led to much of Hamlet’s

disillusion with women. Brustein calls this “sex nausea.” He insists that the closet scene, in

which Hamlet berates his mother for her adultery, “contains some of the nastiest examples of sex

nausea in the language, among them images of mildew, blisters, ulcers, infection, rankness, and

contagion,” and goes on to assert that Hamlet, “is a man for whom sexuality no longer holds a

hint of pleasure or love or healthy human connection” (“Misogyny” 16). This is true in part: it is

specifically ​female​ sexuality which no longer brings pleasure to Hamlet. As was mentioned,

there is substantial support for the fact that the language Hamlet and Horatio used with each

other was erotically charged. And while the term “closeted” would not have had the meaning in

Shakespeare’s time that it has now, it is nevertheless of note that the scene that takes place inside

a closet contains some of Hamlet’s most prominent displays of disgust for women, as Hamlet
 Heck 12

himself was “closeted,” unable to take his relationship with Horatio beyond a friendship, at least

publicly. This scene symbolizes the frustration that Hamlet feels with women—his anger over

their perceived corruption and his irritation at the fact that he simply does not love Ophelia the

way he loves Horatio.

The consensus that Hamlet is misogynistic is well-known and widely-accepted. His

queerness, however, is still commonly dismissed. This dismissal shows the unwillingness of

readers to come to terms with the idea that Shakespeare was familiar with homosexuality and

made it a part of his works. And while everyone is in agreement that the root of Hamlet’s

misogyny is attributed to Gertrude, the role that his queerness and internalized homophobia play

in his misogyny is more often than not overlooked. The fact that the homoerotic feelings between

Hamlet and Horatio are not as apparent as Hamlet’s disgust with his mother does not mean that

those feelings are not a contributing factor to his misogyny, but rather that Shakespeare, being

the great playwright he is, did not put everything on the surface; if we respect Shakespeare’s

impressive writing abilities, then we should be able to accept that creating a homoerotic

relationship through complicated rhetoric and things left unsaid was something he was perfectly

capable of doing. Hamlet’s internalized homophobia is absolutely a contributing factor to his

hatred of women. He is expected to be with Ophelia, to marry her and love her. Yet, he admits

that he never loved her, and his most intimate moments in the play occur with Horatio. Part of

Hamlet’s frustration with women certainly comes from the fact that he does not feel for women,

for his future wife, the strong emotions and deep connection that he feels for his best friend.

Doing justice to Shakespeare’s ​Hamlet​ necessitates a willingness to entertain the idea that

Hamlet, one of his most famous characters, was not a straight man.
 Heck 13

Works Cited

Brustein, Robert. “Effemiphobia: The Osric Courtier” ​The Tainted Muse: Prejudice and

​ ale UP, 2009, pp. 53-91.

Presumption in Shakespeare and His Time, Y

Brustein, Robert. “Misogyny: The Hamlet Obsession.” ​The Tainted Muse: Prejudice and

​ ale UP, 2009, pp. 13-52.

Presumption in Shakespeare and His Time, Y

Crewe, Jonathan. “Reading Horatio.” ​Shakespeare Quarterly, v​ ol. 62, no. 2, 2011, pp. 271-278.

Masten, Jeffrey. “Toward a Queer Address: The Taste of Letters and Early Modern Male

Friendship.” ​GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies,​ vol. 10, no. 3, 2004, pp.

367-384.

Shakespeare, William. ​Hamlet.​ ​ E

​ dited by G.R. Hibbard, Oxford UP, 2008.

Spaeth, J. Duncan. “Horatio’s Hamlet.” ​The Shakespeare Association Bulletin,​ vol. 24, no. 1,

1949, pp. 37-47.

Van Watson, William. “Shakespeare, Zeffirelli, and the Homosexual Gaze.” ​Literature/Film

Quarterly, v​ ol. 20, no. 4, 1992, pp. 308-325.