Printable View
There's no explicit homosexuality in Shakespeare's plays, like there is in some Marlowe or in the Libertine writing of the Restoration a century later. However, it is equally naieve to think that Elizabethan audiences would be completely ignorant of homosexual undertones. The audiences would be aware of homosexual acts and desires, but they wouldn't have had a conception of someone being ''gay'' or ''lesbian'' in the way we do today.
I must agree with the bulk of respondents. There is nothing gay about either Antonio or Iago and any such interpretation is stretched. That's not to say that an interpretation of Antonio as gay isn't an interesting one, but Iago, certainly not. It would devalue his motive and the strength of his character to portray him as gay IMO. Sorry, I think you're grasping at this one Kelby.
Othello would imagine it being Desdemona but the majority of the audience would see it as two men. Therefore one might argue that there is an undercurrent there which a director may or may not choose to pick up on.Quote:
Originally Posted by wessexgirl
Of course, if a director chose to make Iago concretely gay, and that he was jealous because he couldn't connect with women, that would undermine it, just as it would to take a concrete view of any of Shakespeare's characters.
It seems bizarre to me that no one would look at Iago's views on sexuality when the whole play is based on a rumour of adultery and a scandalous marriage. I'm pretty sure he has 'issues', whether he is Puritanical, repressed, self-loathing, impotent, gets power kicks...whatever one chooses to suggest to the audience. But to wash over it means that you deny him a charge that Desdemona, Othello, and to an extent Emilia, have.
I find it incredible that people could think that Antonio and Bassiano are homosexual. There is nowhere in the text that suggests they have any sexual desire for each other. Antonio's 'fie fie!' as his denial of being in love is often cited as being proof of that...but he might just be a bit of a loner.
Amusingly in Julius Caesar, the student textbook I had kept having to define the term 'lover' on every page as meaning friend. Some of the lines- there's one where someone says Caesar is 'his best lover'- might be understood
Now Caesar did have male lovers.......Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Not in Shakespeare's play though.
Such adamant deniability from the bulk of respondents.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
One thing is saying that there's no explicit homosexuality, but to blindly deny it is very prejudiced.
If you say that there's nothing gay about Antonio, it must be because you have the character perfectly outlined and understood. Can you explain me, then, why was Antonio so sad when the play starts? And why was he so sad when he said goodbye to Bassanio before Bassanio went to choose the right casket at Portia's house? Both things happened before his vessels were damaged, so it had nothing to do with that.
Also, can any of you explain, if there's nothing to suggest Shakespeare's homosexuality, these lines of one of his sonnets?
Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure,
Mine be thy love and thy love's use their treasure.
I guess the ones who say that Shakespeare was definitely NOT bisexual must think that these lines were refering to a Martian alien (reserved for women's pleasure, of course).
Shakespeare did not include explicit homosexuality most likely because he would have ended dying at the stake, at a time where you could have that very same fate only for saying that you were a Catholic or a Jew. So, as another poster mentioned before, concepts then were not the same as concepts now. The fact that Shakespeare did not have his characters say "I am homosexual/gay" or "he just came out of the closet" doesn't mean that there isn't homoerotic subtext (in some of his plays) or explicit homosexuality (in his sonnets).
While I see the "textual evidence," I don't believe Shakespeare intends Antonio to be homosexual. In his time, for a man to say he loved another man simply meant that he cared a lot about that man. I've read about John Kennedy and that men said they "loved the president." That doesn't mean they were in love with him, only that they admired and respected him.
If Antonio is in love with Bassanio, why does he give him money to go off and woo Portia? Why wouldn't he deny him the cash so that he'd have to stay home and be close to Antonio?
Even if Antonio is in love with Bassanio, who cares? Why must sexuality be part of everything? The point of the story is the loan and the forfeiture of a pound of flesh.
Perhaps some people accept a gay Antonio after reading Graham Midgley's fine 1960 essay. Having read ROMEO AND JULIET and the 1976 CLIFF'S NOTE's I thought that Antonio desired Shylock's wife. Samuel Johnson's "poet of nature" comment is helpful here as the idea that Antonio may be gay but is more likely heterosexual stands up, as it were, to further study. Regarding Shakespeare himself, one might note that he was born during the early years of Elizabeth's reign and wrote the play near the end. So, it seems reasonable that he regarded her as an important person in his audience.