Horatio's Gift-Dynamics & Christ-Figures Shifting Ground, 1.1: (Part 14) Labors of Gratitude and Regret in Hamlet
This is the latest installment in a multi-part series examining how characters interact in Hamlet, offering opportunities, gifts, planting seeds for future inspiration, or for changes of heart & mind. It follows ideas from Lewis Hyde (“The Labor of Gratitude,” a chapter in his book, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property). For more notes on the series and an index of previous posts in this series, see the end of this post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Introduction:
I have been writing a series of blog posts about characters in Hamlet who undergo change due to interactions or events that result in gratitude or regret. This has been inspired in part by Lewis Hyde’s chapter called “The Labor of Gratitude.” Yet in part it has also been inspired by my work on biblical allusions in Shakespeare.
It sprang from a basic question: If Shakespeare quoted from scripture, paraphrased scripture, and also echoed biblical plots in various moments of his plays, then when he portrays dynamic characters who interact and change in light of those interactions, transcending their earlier assumptions, habits, or convictions, do these dynamics and transformations at all resemble or move toward what Christians would call a Christian sort of life? Can we see in character development and their movements toward transcendence anything in harmony with aspects of the moral and religious transcendence Christians seek? Do the positive effects of their interaction even vaguely echo what Christian communities see in Christians interdependent upon one another, willing to share their gifts freely, to welcome the stranger, to correct one another, to reconcile, to lay down their lives for one another?
One does not have to be a Christian to value such things or to seek them in Shakespeare plots and characters, and if such elements are present, they need not be didactic or heavy-handed; they are more likely ambiguous and often unfinished (rather than “happily ever after” endings).
[L, Cyron Melville as Hamlet, and R, Oliver Alvin-Wilson as Horatio, Shakespeare Festival Denmark at Kronborg Castle, 2017]
Horatio
For this last set of post in this series, Horatio may seem a difficult choice: He seems much less central to the plot than other characters, and in fact seems to have been designed merely as another foil for Hamlet, a friend to whom the prince can talk to spare him the awkwardness and labor of too many soliloquies. In that way, Horatio may seem more a pressure-release value for the rest of the play than a well-developed character in his own right.
Horatio is not without problems: Some wonder, if the king asked Horatio to “Follow her close” and give Ophelia “good watch” (4.5.2811-2812), then is Horatio guilty of negligence in Ophelia’s death? And how is it that Horatio in the graveyard (5.1) has not told Hamlet of Ophelia’s death, or was never informed of it himself until the corpse of Ophelia arrives in procession to be buried? T.S. Eliot called Hamlet a flawed play, an artistic failure. [1] Others (including David Bevington) have said it raises more questions than it gives answers. [2] At least in part, they may have had Horatio in mind.
Nonetheless, Horatio can be viewed as an active member of certain gift-communities, called upon to offer his own gifts, and willing to change his heart and mind in light of the gifts and needs of others.
Horatio in 1.1: Gift Communities and Shifting Christ-Figures
We see in Hamlet 1.1 not only a Horatio who is part of, and invited into, gift-communities, but also the locus of Christ-figures shifting ground, perhaps not unlike the ghost who seems to shift position under the stage in 1.5 while Hamlet asks his friends to swear on his sword.
When the first scene opens, we don’t learn right away, but soon, that the sentinels have already seen the Ghost on two separate occasions, and that they have invited Horatio to watch with them this night. This shows Horatio as already the recipient of certain gifts.
Horatio is still a student at Wittenberg, as is the prince, but it seems the sentinels may be not only disturbed at the unusual sighting of the apparition but also hesitant to bring news directly to Prince Hamlet, which seems their long-term goal. The sentinels know they are not experts in supernatural specters, yet they know students at university in Wittenberg may have the knowledge they lack.
So by inviting Horatio to watch with them and perhaps witness this strange and terrifying sight, they offer him a number of gifts: First, they seem to trust his learning as something they may need. Second, they trust that, as Horatio is the close friend of their prince, they might be better able to approach Hamlet with their most strange report if they do so through Horatio as an intercessor. They clearly do not wish to report this to Polonius or Claudius first, but rather, they are already inclined toward Prince Hamlet, because it is his dead father they believe they have seen, and perhaps because they, like Hamlet, have misgivings about this new king who scandalously married a dead brother's wife.
They say, “It is in giving that we receive,” and it's true that gift dynamics are often reciprocal in many ways. In this particular situation, although the sentinels are asking Horatio a significant favor, they are also offering him their trust and respect as a student and friend of the prince, and also as one who might keep the news confidential. Their end goal is for Hamlet to know, but not Claudius. But for Horatio, in giving by doing them a favor will allow him to receive the strange gift of witnessing the ghost's appearance and having an important tale to tell his friend.
Horatio as Reluctant, Skeptical Intercessor
To call Horatio an “intercessor” between the sentinels and the prince evokes images of Catholics asking Mary and other saints to intercede on their behalf in prayer. This is appropriate, given that Shakespeare’s England was still torn between Protestants who rejected saint-intercessors, and Catholics who still believed in the practice of intercessory prayer. Catholics feared God and assumed He was too busy, or perhaps too wrathful and mysterious; saints whose stories they knew seemed more accessible, so asking saints to pray for them, to intercede with God for them, seemed a more humble and wiser approach to make their prayers heard. The use of intercessors also reflected their cultural-political understanding of how the world works when it comes to powerful figures: Often, and intercessor is quite necessary.
The Sentinels’ Trust Implies Another Gift-Community
The fact that the sentinels trust and respect Horatio as a student-scholar and friend of the prince implies, of course, that Horatio has a gift-exchange history with Hamlet. No one would be a close friend of the prince, especially a poor man as Horatio later describes himself (1.2), if he didn’t have a history of friendship that had become known to the sentinels. And friendship is always based importantly on non-material gift exchange: We confide in our friends, we console them, we humor them, we seek their support and advice. These are all gifts, though not material ones, and with our friends, we give and receive such gifts freely.
Horatio: Not Fully Present
When Horatio first arrives for the watch, he’s asked if it’s him, and he says “A piece of him.” This could be due to the fact that it is bitter cold, a detail already described by Francisco before his exit; or it could be in part because Horatio has been a skeptic from the start regarding this exercise in waiting to see a ghost that he does not believe will appear. (I have commented on this blog in the past that, due to the Eucharistic controversy of the time, as described by scholars such as Stephen Greenblatt, the original audiences of Shakespeare’s Hamlet may have heard in Horatio’s line, “a piece of him,” a witty reference to those Eucharistic debates and pamphlets.) We might say that Horatio’s heart is not fully in the enterprise, so he’s not fully there, whether that is for the cold, his skepticism, or both.
Horatio as Doubting Thomas
Early in the first scene, we get this exchange:
Marcellus
Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,
And will not let belief take hold of him,
Touching this dreaded sight twice seen of us.
Therefore I have entreated him along
With us to watch the minutes of this night,
That if again this apparition come
He may approve our eyes and speak to it.
Horatio
Tush, tush, 'twill not appear.
Barnardo
Sit down awhile,
And let us once again assail your ears,
That are so fortified against our story,
What we two nights have seen. [1.1.32-43]
By saying that Horatio “will not let belief take hold of him, / Touching this dreaded sight twice seen of us,” Marcellus paints Horatio as a doubting Thomas, stressing it again by saying Horatio has been invited to keep watch that “He may approve our eyes and speak to it.” This follows the formula found in John 20:24-29 (1599 Geneva Bible):
24 But Thomas one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord: but he said unto them, Except I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put mine hand into his side, I will not believe it.
26 And eight days after, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, when the doors were shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 After said he to Thomas, Put thy finger here, and see mine hands, and put forth thine hand, and put it into my side, and be not faithless, but faithful.
28 Then Thomas answered, and said unto him, Thou art my Lord, and my God.
29 Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou believest: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
To Be Or Not? Let Be?
Horatio *Will Not Let Be*-lief take hold?
In the middle of the play, Hamlet asks, "To be or not to be?" But by the last scene he is more open to Providence and to what he cannot control, echoing the Virgin Mary and Jesus in scripture with his "Let be."
We might want to pay special attention to the contrast between Hamlet’s eventual “Let Be” in 5.2, and Marcellus describing Horatio here as one who “will not let be-lief take hold.” [Emphasis mine] As a skeptic, Horatio is not open to the mysterious action of Providence which he cannot control. Horatio needs to find a new faith that makes room for more things than are dreamt of in his philosophy, as Hamlet would later say; he needs to surrender to the mysterious possibilities, tho’ they may pose a danger to him and others. He needs to surrender to Providence, to the God who described himself to Moses as “I am who am,” the God who is a verb, another variation on “to be.”
Horatio's Turning
As with the disciples, the sentinels have witnessed something that has changed them, and they want Horatio to witness it too and believe them in spite of his reluctance.
When the ghost appears, Bernardo asks Horatio,
Looks it not like the King? Mark it, Horatio.
Horatio
Most like. It harrows me with fear and wonder. [1.1.55-56]
Bernardo observes that the ghost should be addressed, and Marcellus asks Horatio to do so, but this leads to failure:
Horatio
What art thou that usurp'st this time of night,
Together with that fair and warlike form
In which the majesty of buried Denmark
Did sometimes march? By heaven, I charge thee speak!
Marcellus
It is offended.
Barnardo
See, it stalks away.
Horatio
Stay, speak, speak, I charge thee speak! [Exit the Ghost.]
Marcellus
'Tis gone, and will not answer. [1.1.59-67]
This is an interesting exchange in that it seems the fearful Horatio has tried to turn the tables, speaking strongly to the ghost so as to evoke fear, almost as if he wants instant revenge on the ghost for making him so afraid. But it fails. We might call this a form of projection, Horatio projecting his own fear by trying to inspire it in the ghost. If in fact it is the ghost of Hamlet’s father (which we don’t know for certain), perhaps it is offended to be called a usurper of the night, and to have his appearance distrusted, as if he is falsely pretending to be the dead king, when in fact, it is Claudius who is the usurper and false pretender.
Horatio’s New Faith
Like Thomas, who believes because he has seen, Horatio the skeptic comes to belief and states his new-found faith:
Barnardo
How now, Horatio, you tremble and look pale.
Is not this something more than fantasy?
What think you on't?
Horatio
Before my God, I might not this believe
Without the sensible and true avouch
Of mine own eyes.
Marcellus
Is it not like the King?
Horatio
As thou art to thyself.
Such was the very armor he had on
When he the ambitious Norway combated.
So frowned he once, when in an angry parle
He smote the sledded Polacks on the ice.
'Tis strange.
Marcellus
Thus twice before, and jump at this dead hour,
With martial stalk hath he gone by our watch. [1.1.68-81]
So Marcellus emphasizes that this has been the ghost’s third appearance, and soon in the same scene, it will appear again.
But first, Marcellus asks if anyone knows why Denmark is so hastily getting ready for war, and Horatio volunteers to explain about King Hamlet having killed old Fortinbras of Norway, and now the son, young Fortinbras, poses a threat strong enough to make shipwrights violate their obligation to honor the Sabbath by working on Sundays. Horatio has heard the gossip, so in answer to their question, he offers what he knows, another gift exchange (though the gossip will be biased and may be unreliable).
When the ghost comes again, Horatio questions it in more detail, but without accusing it of usurping the night:
Horatio
If thou hast any sound or use of voice,
Speak to me!
If there be any good thing to be done
That may to thee do ease and grace to me,
Speak to me!
If thou art privy to thy country's fate,
Which happily foreknowing may avoid,
Oh, speak!
Or if thou hast uphoarded in thy life
Extorted treasure in the womb of earth,
For which, they say, you spirits oft walk in death,
Speak of it. Stay and speak! [The cock crows.] . [1.1.128-136]
Shift from Thomas Seeing the Risen Jesus to Peter’s Denials
What happens next is important: The sentinels have to this point treated Horatio like a Doubting Thomas, and the ghost, like some risen Christ-figure in which Horatio should have faith. But they and Horatio himself keep paying attention to what they are seeing:
Barnardo
It was about to speak when the cock crew.
Horatio
And then it started like a guilty thing
Upon a fearful summons. [1.1.146-148]
They notice the crowing of the cock and the ghost’s response, and suddenly the biblical story through which they view their experience shifts from the tale of Thomas witnessing the risen Christ, to the tale of how Peter denied knowing Jesus three times.
In Shakespeare’s time, one of the most commonly known versions of that tale was Luke’s account in the Geneva Bible (1599 here):
Luke 22:54-62:
54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him to the high Priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off.
55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter also sat down among them.
56 And a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and having well looked on him, said, This man was also with him.
57 But he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.
58 And after a little while, another man saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not.
59 And about the space of an hour after, a certain other affirmed, saying. Verily, even this man was with him: for he is also a Galilean.
60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately while he yet spake, the cock crew.
61 Then the Lord turned back, and looked upon Peter: and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.
What interests me about Luke’s version of the tale is not only the implication that the ghost has some guilt on his conscience, but also the rhythm of the gospel tale: A maid confronts Peter, then a man, then another man, but Peter denies knowing Jesus.
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the order is altered, but Hamlet denies he ever loved Ophelia (a maid), and resists the spying efforts of his old friends, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern. Like Peter, Hamlet feels vulnerable for what he knows and does not want to be exposed by others, including these three.
Go Tell Hamlet
The scene ends with Horatio suggesting that, because of both their love for Hamlet and their duty to him as their prince, they should tell Hamlet of what they have seen:
Break we our watch up, and by my advice
Let us impart what we have seen tonight
Unto young Hamlet, for, upon my life,
This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him.
Do you consent we shall acquaint him with it
As needful in our loves, fitting our duty?
There is a story in Mark’s gospel (9:17-29) about a spirit that would not respond to the disciples Jesus had sent out, so they ask Jesus himself to try.
This gospel story echoed here (“This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him”), is an especially interesting and subtle echo or allusion, because in the gospel story in Mark 9, it's about a son who is possessed by a demon, which others are unsuccessful at casting out, but which Jesus himself is able to cast out.
So “This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him” not only echoes Mark 9:17-29, but also foreshadows Hamlet's madness or possession, and the eventual casting out of his evil spirit, in part when saved by Providence and pirates on the sea voyage, and in part when saved by the memory of Yorick in the graveyard, an echo of the Emmaus gospel tale.
How Gift-Dynamics Play Out in This Scene
The scene implies that Horatio is already in a relationship of mutual gift exchange through his friendship with Hamlet. The sentinels show him respect and trust, acknowledging that friendship and the fact that he is a university student and scholar. Horatio reluctantly receives these gifts of respect and trust, but as a skeptic, doesn’t believe that a ghost will appear.
Lewis Hyde says that when we receive a potentially life-changing gift, we feel gratitude, and through it, may become like the gift or giver. Horatio becomes more like the sentinels in that he changes from a skeptic to a believer in the fact of the apparition.
But the sentinels are not the only sources of gifts in the scene. Horatio offers a return gift of his best attempt at understanding why Denmark is preparing for war. And the apparition itself is a kind of gift, though we don’t know yet if the gift is for good or for ill. The sentinels and Horatio keep attending to the details of what they have witnessed, and they come to a new insight: The ghost appears to be guilty and answering to “a fearful summons” at the crowing of the cock and the arrival of morning. All of this impresses upon them the need to convey what they have witnessed to the prince.
What Horatio’s Turning Foreshadows
Shakespeare’s Hamlet is really a play about turnings, about changes of heart and mind, or at least opportunities for it. As I have tried to show in this series on labors of gratitude and regret in Hamlet, many characters have opportunities to turn:
—HAMLET, though tempted toward madness and cruelty, is converted at sea to a merciful Providence which Hamlet feels has saved him through the agency of pirates.
—POLONIUS, who had judged Hamlet’s intentions toward his daughter too harshly at first, has a change of heart.
—GERTRUDE, who had assumed that her incestuous marriage to her dead husband’s brother was fine, is perhaps reluctantly forced to confront her guilt by her son in the closet scene (3.4); she continues to display her feelings of guilt before speaking to mad Ophelia (4.5), and perhaps disobeys her husband and drinks from the cup in the final scene, perhaps suspecting the cup may have been poisoned, and wishing to protect her son.
—OPHELIA’s remarks about how “they say the owl was a baker’s daughter” may indicate her regret for rejecting Hamlet in his time of need. The folktale to which she refers is a retelling of the scripture tale of Lazarus and the rich man. Though she despairs of her fate with Hamlet gone and her father dead, she later remarks, "It is the false steward that stole his master's daughter." Though it is very ambiguous, if this is an allusion to a sub-plot of a Ben Jonson play (as some believe it is), Ophelia, like Hamlet, may have a sense that she has been tended by false stewards who have told her she is unworthy of marriage to a prince, while in fact she may be quite worthy by her true father (Hamlet’s “Providence”).
—LAERTES is hungry for revenge upon learning of his father’s death and quiet burial, but through the flattery of Claudius, he is quickly made a tool for Claudius’ plans for killing Hamlet; yet Laertes finally recognizes the errors of his ways after witnessing Gertrude drink from the poison cup, and after himself being wounded by his own poison sword, which Hamlet doesn’t know is poisoned.
It is often quite ambiguous with other characters, especially Gertrude and Ophelia, and only very partial and self-interested for Polonius, but it seems that Claudius is the only character who clearly refuses the opportunity to change for the better.
But for each of these other characters, if in fact they do have some kind of turning, the Thomas-like turning of Horatio serves as foreshadowing.
Shifting Christ-Figures in this Scene:
1. Horatio doubts the ghost will appear;
Thomas doubted Jesus appeared; [John 20:24-29]
So in this part of the scene, Horatio = Thomas, and the ghost = the risen Jesus (for limited analogy's sake).
2. The ghost acts guilty and fearful at the crowing of a cock;
Peter acted guilty and fearful at the crowing of the cock because he denied Jesus three times.
[Luke 22:54-62; Matthew 26:69-75]
So the king = Peter denying he knows Jesus.
This implies that the dead king must have done something to deny Jesus;
so in this moment, Jesus is located in those the king denied or harmed while in life, perhaps Fortinbras, perhaps "the least of these," overlooked by a rich king who was "full of bread." [3.3.2356]
3. The sentinels and Horatio think that the ghost which would not speak to them will to Hamlet.
The disciples thought that the spirit which would not respond to them would to Jesus. [Mark 9:17-29]
So in this moment of the scene, Horatio and the sentinels = disciples, and Hamlet = Jesus.
This doesn't mean we should take Shakespeare too literally and assume the ghost IS Jesus, AND Peter, etc. The point is to note the fluidity of Shakespeare's allusive practice: He offers biblical metaphors for what insight they're worth, but then quickly shifts metaphors lest we take any one metaphor or biblical allusion too literally. One could call this a transcendental allusive practice, because it demands that we transcend the limits of any one allusion.
In summary
At first, Horatio will not let be-lief take hold of him: This changes, and Horatio becomes more like the sentinels who have given him a strange and dangerous gift, inviting him along to see the ghost.
After they see the ghost, they use the language of both love and duty to describe their next step, to go and tell the prince. Although the central metaphor for the ghost shifts from one of a risen Jesus to a betraying Peter, the mission of the sentinels and Horatio to go and spread the news to the prince echoes that of the disciples and Jesus. For the disciples, if an evil spirit would not respond to them, they would go tell Jesus and ask for his help. For the sentinels and Horatio, the ghost would not speak to them, but they are confident it will speak to Hamlet.
Sometimes Best Efforts Are Not Enough, But These Are Still Gifts
In trying to speak to the ghost, Horatio offers his best effort, but his best effort is not enough. This is not unlike Hansel in the folktale of Hansel & Gretel (read HERE), whose best effort to find the way home with his sister via breadcrumbs is not enough; or it is like the tale of the seven ravens (read HERE), where boys are asked by their father to get water for an emergency baptism for their sister, but an accident takes place that breaks the bucket, and they fear their best efforts are not enough, and their father will be angry; still, they tried, and the sister will later repay the gift of their best (tho’ failed) efforts.
So in this scene, we find a Horatio who is the recipient of the gift of Hamlet's friendship, as well as the recipient of trust and respect from the sentinels. He is converted from his skepticism and believes the sentinels had seen the ghost because he himself saw in on this third night. Horatio offers the gift of news (gossip) and history about the reasons for Denmark's preparations for war. And he offers the gift of his courage in speaking to the ghost twice. Their best efforts were not enough, so they go to the prince with the gift of their news, and also with a plea, that perhaps he will know what to do and succeed where they had failed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[All Hamlet quotes are from the Modern, Editor's Version, edited by David Bevington, available at Internet Shakespeare, from the University of Victoria, Canada.]
[All quotes from the 1599 Geneva Bible are from BibleGateway.com, which has a wide range of bible translations but modernizes spellings and is therefore not a preferred source for scholars, but more accessible.]
[1] You can find Eliot's essay on Hamlet here: https://www.bartleby.com/200/sw9.html
[2] “As in so many things, Hamlet raises more questions than it answers.” David Bevington, Murder Most Foul: Hamlet Through the Ages, Oxford University Press, p. 81 (2011).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Continued Next Week
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Future posts in this series on "Labors of Gratitude & Regret in Hamlet":
More on Horatio & gift exchange
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE ON THIS SERIES OF POSTS:
This is the latest installment in a multi-part series examining how characters interact in Hamlet, offering opportunities, gifts, planting seeds for future inspiration, or for changes of heart & mind. It follows ideas from Lewis Hyde (“The Labor of Gratitude,” a chapter in his book, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property).
- The more I examine characters in this way, the more I realize how the major characters in Hamlet are dynamic characters who change, becoming better or worse in one way or another. This approach goes against the grain of a great deal of scholarship that seems to reify (or thing-ify) too many characters (as foil, as Oedipal, as Machiavellian, etc.) and view them as more static, rather than as dynamic, fluid, interacting. For an index of previous posts in this series, see below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Index of other posts in this series:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2024/09/index-character-arcs-labors-of.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YOU CAN SUPPORT ME on a one-time "tip" basis on Ko-Fi:
https://ko-fi.com/pauladrianfried
IF YOU WOULD PREFER to support me on a REGULAR basis,
you may do so on Ko-Fi, or here on Patreon:
https://patreon.com/PaulAdrianFried
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages or mention religion in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over another, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to explore how the Bible and religion influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider FOLLOWING.
To find the FOLLOW button, go to the home page: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/
see the = drop-down menu with three lines in the upper left.
From there you can click FOLLOW and see options.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Introduction:
I have been writing a series of blog posts about characters in Hamlet who undergo change due to interactions or events that result in gratitude or regret. This has been inspired in part by Lewis Hyde’s chapter called “The Labor of Gratitude.” Yet in part it has also been inspired by my work on biblical allusions in Shakespeare.
It sprang from a basic question: If Shakespeare quoted from scripture, paraphrased scripture, and also echoed biblical plots in various moments of his plays, then when he portrays dynamic characters who interact and change in light of those interactions, transcending their earlier assumptions, habits, or convictions, do these dynamics and transformations at all resemble or move toward what Christians would call a Christian sort of life? Can we see in character development and their movements toward transcendence anything in harmony with aspects of the moral and religious transcendence Christians seek? Do the positive effects of their interaction even vaguely echo what Christian communities see in Christians interdependent upon one another, willing to share their gifts freely, to welcome the stranger, to correct one another, to reconcile, to lay down their lives for one another?
One does not have to be a Christian to value such things or to seek them in Shakespeare plots and characters, and if such elements are present, they need not be didactic or heavy-handed; they are more likely ambiguous and often unfinished (rather than “happily ever after” endings).
[L, Cyron Melville as Hamlet, and R, Oliver Alvin-Wilson as Horatio, Shakespeare Festival Denmark at Kronborg Castle, 2017]
Horatio
For this last set of post in this series, Horatio may seem a difficult choice: He seems much less central to the plot than other characters, and in fact seems to have been designed merely as another foil for Hamlet, a friend to whom the prince can talk to spare him the awkwardness and labor of too many soliloquies. In that way, Horatio may seem more a pressure-release value for the rest of the play than a well-developed character in his own right.
Horatio is not without problems: Some wonder, if the king asked Horatio to “Follow her close” and give Ophelia “good watch” (4.5.2811-2812), then is Horatio guilty of negligence in Ophelia’s death? And how is it that Horatio in the graveyard (5.1) has not told Hamlet of Ophelia’s death, or was never informed of it himself until the corpse of Ophelia arrives in procession to be buried? T.S. Eliot called Hamlet a flawed play, an artistic failure. [1] Others (including David Bevington) have said it raises more questions than it gives answers. [2] At least in part, they may have had Horatio in mind.
Nonetheless, Horatio can be viewed as an active member of certain gift-communities, called upon to offer his own gifts, and willing to change his heart and mind in light of the gifts and needs of others.
Horatio in 1.1: Gift Communities and Shifting Christ-Figures
We see in Hamlet 1.1 not only a Horatio who is part of, and invited into, gift-communities, but also the locus of Christ-figures shifting ground, perhaps not unlike the ghost who seems to shift position under the stage in 1.5 while Hamlet asks his friends to swear on his sword.
When the first scene opens, we don’t learn right away, but soon, that the sentinels have already seen the Ghost on two separate occasions, and that they have invited Horatio to watch with them this night. This shows Horatio as already the recipient of certain gifts.
Horatio is still a student at Wittenberg, as is the prince, but it seems the sentinels may be not only disturbed at the unusual sighting of the apparition but also hesitant to bring news directly to Prince Hamlet, which seems their long-term goal. The sentinels know they are not experts in supernatural specters, yet they know students at university in Wittenberg may have the knowledge they lack.
So by inviting Horatio to watch with them and perhaps witness this strange and terrifying sight, they offer him a number of gifts: First, they seem to trust his learning as something they may need. Second, they trust that, as Horatio is the close friend of their prince, they might be better able to approach Hamlet with their most strange report if they do so through Horatio as an intercessor. They clearly do not wish to report this to Polonius or Claudius first, but rather, they are already inclined toward Prince Hamlet, because it is his dead father they believe they have seen, and perhaps because they, like Hamlet, have misgivings about this new king who scandalously married a dead brother's wife.
They say, “It is in giving that we receive,” and it's true that gift dynamics are often reciprocal in many ways. In this particular situation, although the sentinels are asking Horatio a significant favor, they are also offering him their trust and respect as a student and friend of the prince, and also as one who might keep the news confidential. Their end goal is for Hamlet to know, but not Claudius. But for Horatio, in giving by doing them a favor will allow him to receive the strange gift of witnessing the ghost's appearance and having an important tale to tell his friend.
Horatio as Reluctant, Skeptical Intercessor
To call Horatio an “intercessor” between the sentinels and the prince evokes images of Catholics asking Mary and other saints to intercede on their behalf in prayer. This is appropriate, given that Shakespeare’s England was still torn between Protestants who rejected saint-intercessors, and Catholics who still believed in the practice of intercessory prayer. Catholics feared God and assumed He was too busy, or perhaps too wrathful and mysterious; saints whose stories they knew seemed more accessible, so asking saints to pray for them, to intercede with God for them, seemed a more humble and wiser approach to make their prayers heard. The use of intercessors also reflected their cultural-political understanding of how the world works when it comes to powerful figures: Often, and intercessor is quite necessary.
The Sentinels’ Trust Implies Another Gift-Community
The fact that the sentinels trust and respect Horatio as a student-scholar and friend of the prince implies, of course, that Horatio has a gift-exchange history with Hamlet. No one would be a close friend of the prince, especially a poor man as Horatio later describes himself (1.2), if he didn’t have a history of friendship that had become known to the sentinels. And friendship is always based importantly on non-material gift exchange: We confide in our friends, we console them, we humor them, we seek their support and advice. These are all gifts, though not material ones, and with our friends, we give and receive such gifts freely.
Horatio: Not Fully Present
When Horatio first arrives for the watch, he’s asked if it’s him, and he says “A piece of him.” This could be due to the fact that it is bitter cold, a detail already described by Francisco before his exit; or it could be in part because Horatio has been a skeptic from the start regarding this exercise in waiting to see a ghost that he does not believe will appear. (I have commented on this blog in the past that, due to the Eucharistic controversy of the time, as described by scholars such as Stephen Greenblatt, the original audiences of Shakespeare’s Hamlet may have heard in Horatio’s line, “a piece of him,” a witty reference to those Eucharistic debates and pamphlets.) We might say that Horatio’s heart is not fully in the enterprise, so he’s not fully there, whether that is for the cold, his skepticism, or both.
Horatio as Doubting Thomas
Early in the first scene, we get this exchange:
Marcellus
Horatio says 'tis but our fantasy,
And will not let belief take hold of him,
Touching this dreaded sight twice seen of us.
Therefore I have entreated him along
With us to watch the minutes of this night,
That if again this apparition come
He may approve our eyes and speak to it.
Horatio
Tush, tush, 'twill not appear.
Barnardo
Sit down awhile,
And let us once again assail your ears,
That are so fortified against our story,
What we two nights have seen. [1.1.32-43]
By saying that Horatio “will not let belief take hold of him, / Touching this dreaded sight twice seen of us,” Marcellus paints Horatio as a doubting Thomas, stressing it again by saying Horatio has been invited to keep watch that “He may approve our eyes and speak to it.” This follows the formula found in John 20:24-29 (1599 Geneva Bible):
24 But Thomas one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord: but he said unto them, Except I see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put mine hand into his side, I will not believe it.
26 And eight days after, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, when the doors were shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
27 After said he to Thomas, Put thy finger here, and see mine hands, and put forth thine hand, and put it into my side, and be not faithless, but faithful.
28 Then Thomas answered, and said unto him, Thou art my Lord, and my God.
29 Jesus said unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou believest: blessed are they that have not seen, and have believed.
To Be Or Not? Let Be?
Horatio *Will Not Let Be*-lief take hold?
In the middle of the play, Hamlet asks, "To be or not to be?" But by the last scene he is more open to Providence and to what he cannot control, echoing the Virgin Mary and Jesus in scripture with his "Let be."
We might want to pay special attention to the contrast between Hamlet’s eventual “Let Be” in 5.2, and Marcellus describing Horatio here as one who “will not let be-lief take hold.” [Emphasis mine] As a skeptic, Horatio is not open to the mysterious action of Providence which he cannot control. Horatio needs to find a new faith that makes room for more things than are dreamt of in his philosophy, as Hamlet would later say; he needs to surrender to the mysterious possibilities, tho’ they may pose a danger to him and others. He needs to surrender to Providence, to the God who described himself to Moses as “I am who am,” the God who is a verb, another variation on “to be.”
Horatio's Turning
As with the disciples, the sentinels have witnessed something that has changed them, and they want Horatio to witness it too and believe them in spite of his reluctance.
When the ghost appears, Bernardo asks Horatio,
Looks it not like the King? Mark it, Horatio.
Horatio
Most like. It harrows me with fear and wonder. [1.1.55-56]
Bernardo observes that the ghost should be addressed, and Marcellus asks Horatio to do so, but this leads to failure:
Horatio
What art thou that usurp'st this time of night,
Together with that fair and warlike form
In which the majesty of buried Denmark
Did sometimes march? By heaven, I charge thee speak!
Marcellus
It is offended.
Barnardo
See, it stalks away.
Horatio
Stay, speak, speak, I charge thee speak! [Exit the Ghost.]
Marcellus
'Tis gone, and will not answer. [1.1.59-67]
This is an interesting exchange in that it seems the fearful Horatio has tried to turn the tables, speaking strongly to the ghost so as to evoke fear, almost as if he wants instant revenge on the ghost for making him so afraid. But it fails. We might call this a form of projection, Horatio projecting his own fear by trying to inspire it in the ghost. If in fact it is the ghost of Hamlet’s father (which we don’t know for certain), perhaps it is offended to be called a usurper of the night, and to have his appearance distrusted, as if he is falsely pretending to be the dead king, when in fact, it is Claudius who is the usurper and false pretender.
Horatio’s New Faith
Like Thomas, who believes because he has seen, Horatio the skeptic comes to belief and states his new-found faith:
Barnardo
How now, Horatio, you tremble and look pale.
Is not this something more than fantasy?
What think you on't?
Horatio
Before my God, I might not this believe
Without the sensible and true avouch
Of mine own eyes.
Marcellus
Is it not like the King?
Horatio
As thou art to thyself.
Such was the very armor he had on
When he the ambitious Norway combated.
So frowned he once, when in an angry parle
He smote the sledded Polacks on the ice.
'Tis strange.
Marcellus
Thus twice before, and jump at this dead hour,
With martial stalk hath he gone by our watch. [1.1.68-81]
So Marcellus emphasizes that this has been the ghost’s third appearance, and soon in the same scene, it will appear again.
But first, Marcellus asks if anyone knows why Denmark is so hastily getting ready for war, and Horatio volunteers to explain about King Hamlet having killed old Fortinbras of Norway, and now the son, young Fortinbras, poses a threat strong enough to make shipwrights violate their obligation to honor the Sabbath by working on Sundays. Horatio has heard the gossip, so in answer to their question, he offers what he knows, another gift exchange (though the gossip will be biased and may be unreliable).
When the ghost comes again, Horatio questions it in more detail, but without accusing it of usurping the night:
Horatio
If thou hast any sound or use of voice,
Speak to me!
If there be any good thing to be done
That may to thee do ease and grace to me,
Speak to me!
If thou art privy to thy country's fate,
Which happily foreknowing may avoid,
Oh, speak!
Or if thou hast uphoarded in thy life
Extorted treasure in the womb of earth,
For which, they say, you spirits oft walk in death,
Speak of it. Stay and speak! [The cock crows.] . [1.1.128-136]
Shift from Thomas Seeing the Risen Jesus to Peter’s Denials
What happens next is important: The sentinels have to this point treated Horatio like a Doubting Thomas, and the ghost, like some risen Christ-figure in which Horatio should have faith. But they and Horatio himself keep paying attention to what they are seeing:
Barnardo
It was about to speak when the cock crew.
Horatio
And then it started like a guilty thing
Upon a fearful summons. [1.1.146-148]
They notice the crowing of the cock and the ghost’s response, and suddenly the biblical story through which they view their experience shifts from the tale of Thomas witnessing the risen Christ, to the tale of how Peter denied knowing Jesus three times.
In Shakespeare’s time, one of the most commonly known versions of that tale was Luke’s account in the Geneva Bible (1599 here):
Luke 22:54-62:
54 Then took they him, and led him, and brought him to the high Priest’s house. And Peter followed afar off.
55 And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter also sat down among them.
56 And a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and having well looked on him, said, This man was also with him.
57 But he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him not.
58 And after a little while, another man saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not.
59 And about the space of an hour after, a certain other affirmed, saying. Verily, even this man was with him: for he is also a Galilean.
60 And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately while he yet spake, the cock crew.
61 Then the Lord turned back, and looked upon Peter: and Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.
What interests me about Luke’s version of the tale is not only the implication that the ghost has some guilt on his conscience, but also the rhythm of the gospel tale: A maid confronts Peter, then a man, then another man, but Peter denies knowing Jesus.
In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the order is altered, but Hamlet denies he ever loved Ophelia (a maid), and resists the spying efforts of his old friends, Rosencrantz & Guildenstern. Like Peter, Hamlet feels vulnerable for what he knows and does not want to be exposed by others, including these three.
Go Tell Hamlet
The scene ends with Horatio suggesting that, because of both their love for Hamlet and their duty to him as their prince, they should tell Hamlet of what they have seen:
Break we our watch up, and by my advice
Let us impart what we have seen tonight
Unto young Hamlet, for, upon my life,
This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him.
Do you consent we shall acquaint him with it
As needful in our loves, fitting our duty?
There is a story in Mark’s gospel (9:17-29) about a spirit that would not respond to the disciples Jesus had sent out, so they ask Jesus himself to try.
This gospel story echoed here (“This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him”), is an especially interesting and subtle echo or allusion, because in the gospel story in Mark 9, it's about a son who is possessed by a demon, which others are unsuccessful at casting out, but which Jesus himself is able to cast out.
So “This spirit, dumb to us, will speak to him” not only echoes Mark 9:17-29, but also foreshadows Hamlet's madness or possession, and the eventual casting out of his evil spirit, in part when saved by Providence and pirates on the sea voyage, and in part when saved by the memory of Yorick in the graveyard, an echo of the Emmaus gospel tale.
How Gift-Dynamics Play Out in This Scene
The scene implies that Horatio is already in a relationship of mutual gift exchange through his friendship with Hamlet. The sentinels show him respect and trust, acknowledging that friendship and the fact that he is a university student and scholar. Horatio reluctantly receives these gifts of respect and trust, but as a skeptic, doesn’t believe that a ghost will appear.
Lewis Hyde says that when we receive a potentially life-changing gift, we feel gratitude, and through it, may become like the gift or giver. Horatio becomes more like the sentinels in that he changes from a skeptic to a believer in the fact of the apparition.
But the sentinels are not the only sources of gifts in the scene. Horatio offers a return gift of his best attempt at understanding why Denmark is preparing for war. And the apparition itself is a kind of gift, though we don’t know yet if the gift is for good or for ill. The sentinels and Horatio keep attending to the details of what they have witnessed, and they come to a new insight: The ghost appears to be guilty and answering to “a fearful summons” at the crowing of the cock and the arrival of morning. All of this impresses upon them the need to convey what they have witnessed to the prince.
What Horatio’s Turning Foreshadows
Shakespeare’s Hamlet is really a play about turnings, about changes of heart and mind, or at least opportunities for it. As I have tried to show in this series on labors of gratitude and regret in Hamlet, many characters have opportunities to turn:
—HAMLET, though tempted toward madness and cruelty, is converted at sea to a merciful Providence which Hamlet feels has saved him through the agency of pirates.
—POLONIUS, who had judged Hamlet’s intentions toward his daughter too harshly at first, has a change of heart.
—GERTRUDE, who had assumed that her incestuous marriage to her dead husband’s brother was fine, is perhaps reluctantly forced to confront her guilt by her son in the closet scene (3.4); she continues to display her feelings of guilt before speaking to mad Ophelia (4.5), and perhaps disobeys her husband and drinks from the cup in the final scene, perhaps suspecting the cup may have been poisoned, and wishing to protect her son.
—OPHELIA’s remarks about how “they say the owl was a baker’s daughter” may indicate her regret for rejecting Hamlet in his time of need. The folktale to which she refers is a retelling of the scripture tale of Lazarus and the rich man. Though she despairs of her fate with Hamlet gone and her father dead, she later remarks, "It is the false steward that stole his master's daughter." Though it is very ambiguous, if this is an allusion to a sub-plot of a Ben Jonson play (as some believe it is), Ophelia, like Hamlet, may have a sense that she has been tended by false stewards who have told her she is unworthy of marriage to a prince, while in fact she may be quite worthy by her true father (Hamlet’s “Providence”).
—LAERTES is hungry for revenge upon learning of his father’s death and quiet burial, but through the flattery of Claudius, he is quickly made a tool for Claudius’ plans for killing Hamlet; yet Laertes finally recognizes the errors of his ways after witnessing Gertrude drink from the poison cup, and after himself being wounded by his own poison sword, which Hamlet doesn’t know is poisoned.
It is often quite ambiguous with other characters, especially Gertrude and Ophelia, and only very partial and self-interested for Polonius, but it seems that Claudius is the only character who clearly refuses the opportunity to change for the better.
But for each of these other characters, if in fact they do have some kind of turning, the Thomas-like turning of Horatio serves as foreshadowing.
Shifting Christ-Figures in this Scene:
1. Horatio doubts the ghost will appear;
Thomas doubted Jesus appeared; [John 20:24-29]
So in this part of the scene, Horatio = Thomas, and the ghost = the risen Jesus (for limited analogy's sake).
2. The ghost acts guilty and fearful at the crowing of a cock;
Peter acted guilty and fearful at the crowing of the cock because he denied Jesus three times.
[Luke 22:54-62; Matthew 26:69-75]
So the king = Peter denying he knows Jesus.
This implies that the dead king must have done something to deny Jesus;
so in this moment, Jesus is located in those the king denied or harmed while in life, perhaps Fortinbras, perhaps "the least of these," overlooked by a rich king who was "full of bread." [3.3.2356]
3. The sentinels and Horatio think that the ghost which would not speak to them will to Hamlet.
The disciples thought that the spirit which would not respond to them would to Jesus. [Mark 9:17-29]
So in this moment of the scene, Horatio and the sentinels = disciples, and Hamlet = Jesus.
This doesn't mean we should take Shakespeare too literally and assume the ghost IS Jesus, AND Peter, etc. The point is to note the fluidity of Shakespeare's allusive practice: He offers biblical metaphors for what insight they're worth, but then quickly shifts metaphors lest we take any one metaphor or biblical allusion too literally. One could call this a transcendental allusive practice, because it demands that we transcend the limits of any one allusion.
In summary
At first, Horatio will not let be-lief take hold of him: This changes, and Horatio becomes more like the sentinels who have given him a strange and dangerous gift, inviting him along to see the ghost.
After they see the ghost, they use the language of both love and duty to describe their next step, to go and tell the prince. Although the central metaphor for the ghost shifts from one of a risen Jesus to a betraying Peter, the mission of the sentinels and Horatio to go and spread the news to the prince echoes that of the disciples and Jesus. For the disciples, if an evil spirit would not respond to them, they would go tell Jesus and ask for his help. For the sentinels and Horatio, the ghost would not speak to them, but they are confident it will speak to Hamlet.
Sometimes Best Efforts Are Not Enough, But These Are Still Gifts
In trying to speak to the ghost, Horatio offers his best effort, but his best effort is not enough. This is not unlike Hansel in the folktale of Hansel & Gretel (read HERE), whose best effort to find the way home with his sister via breadcrumbs is not enough; or it is like the tale of the seven ravens (read HERE), where boys are asked by their father to get water for an emergency baptism for their sister, but an accident takes place that breaks the bucket, and they fear their best efforts are not enough, and their father will be angry; still, they tried, and the sister will later repay the gift of their best (tho’ failed) efforts.
So in this scene, we find a Horatio who is the recipient of the gift of Hamlet's friendship, as well as the recipient of trust and respect from the sentinels. He is converted from his skepticism and believes the sentinels had seen the ghost because he himself saw in on this third night. Horatio offers the gift of news (gossip) and history about the reasons for Denmark's preparations for war. And he offers the gift of his courage in speaking to the ghost twice. Their best efforts were not enough, so they go to the prince with the gift of their news, and also with a plea, that perhaps he will know what to do and succeed where they had failed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[All Hamlet quotes are from the Modern, Editor's Version, edited by David Bevington, available at Internet Shakespeare, from the University of Victoria, Canada.]
[All quotes from the 1599 Geneva Bible are from BibleGateway.com, which has a wide range of bible translations but modernizes spellings and is therefore not a preferred source for scholars, but more accessible.]
[1] You can find Eliot's essay on Hamlet here: https://www.bartleby.com/200/sw9.html
[2] “As in so many things, Hamlet raises more questions than it answers.” David Bevington, Murder Most Foul: Hamlet Through the Ages, Oxford University Press, p. 81 (2011).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Continued Next Week
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Future posts in this series on "Labors of Gratitude & Regret in Hamlet":
More on Horatio & gift exchange
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE ON THIS SERIES OF POSTS:
This is the latest installment in a multi-part series examining how characters interact in Hamlet, offering opportunities, gifts, planting seeds for future inspiration, or for changes of heart & mind. It follows ideas from Lewis Hyde (“The Labor of Gratitude,” a chapter in his book, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property).
- The more I examine characters in this way, the more I realize how the major characters in Hamlet are dynamic characters who change, becoming better or worse in one way or another. This approach goes against the grain of a great deal of scholarship that seems to reify (or thing-ify) too many characters (as foil, as Oedipal, as Machiavellian, etc.) and view them as more static, rather than as dynamic, fluid, interacting. For an index of previous posts in this series, see below.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Index of other posts in this series:
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2024/09/index-character-arcs-labors-of.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YOU CAN SUPPORT ME on a one-time "tip" basis on Ko-Fi:
https://ko-fi.com/pauladrianfried
IF YOU WOULD PREFER to support me on a REGULAR basis,
you may do so on Ko-Fi, or here on Patreon:
https://patreon.com/PaulAdrianFried
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Disclaimer: If and when I quote or paraphrase bible passages or mention religion in many of my blog posts, I do not intend to promote any religion over another, nor am I attempting to promote religious belief in general; only to explore how the Bible and religion influenced Shakespeare, his plays, and his age.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for reading!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My current project is a book tentatively titled Hamlet’s Bible, about biblical allusions and plot echoes in Hamlet.
Below is a link to a list of some of my top posts (“greatest hits”), including a description of my book project (last item on the list):
https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/2019/12/top-20-hamlet-bible-posts.html
I post every week, so please visit as often as you like and consider FOLLOWING.
To find the FOLLOW button, go to the home page: https://pauladrianfried.blogspot.com/
see the = drop-down menu with three lines in the upper left.
From there you can click FOLLOW and see options.
Comments
Post a Comment