Virgil, the theory of Shakespeare being homosexual is hardly anything new or much a fringe belief, yet you treat it as such.
Virgil, the theory of Shakespeare being homosexual is hardly anything new or much a fringe belief, yet you treat it as such.
I don't think Shakespeare is gay, but a gay reading of the sonnets is pretty much an enshrined cultural tradition, it was latched onto by gay readers in the late 19th century precisely because it was so obvious to them that there was something mildly homoerotic about the Fair Youth sonnets. However, the openness to homoerotic readings of the sonnets is not itself evidence of Shakespeare having same-sex attractions or that the sonnets are even intended to be homoerotic.
As to Christians endorsing violence against women, we could look at Hutterites or the Amish, who do require their women to stay in the home and cover everything but their face in public. Or to certain Mormon sects that endorse child marriages and unequal polygamous arrangements. There are also a number of Christian sects that believe that women should be subservient to men.
On the other side, there are a number of Islamic countries where women are not oppressed.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
I am sorry if I played a part in causing any hard feelings on this thread.
I read through my posts, and I am not particularly proud of them. It doesn't matter if I think I was right or not. I was off topic, and played a part in hi-jacking a thread. I just don't feel good about those posts, and I do realize that posting on a public forum is quite different than voicing my opinions face to face with people, which is really the ideal way to argue with people.
Pip: have you ever read Anthony Burgess' Nothing Like the Sun? He posits a number of interesting theories and fleshes them out into a fictive narrative:
Shakespeare's "shotgun wedding" to an older Anne
His homosexual affair with a young aristocrat
His wife's infidelities with Shakespeare's brothers
The death of the only child that was truly his: Hamnet
His affair with a black/mulatto actress (the "dark lady")
It is a fascinating novel based on possibilities.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
The best still that he was Cervantes. You shall read it anyday.
No... Musicology had that beat. He had Shakespeare, Goethe, probably Cervantes, Mozart, Haydn, young Beethoven, Handel, Elvis, and the attacks of 9-11 as all the product of a consortium of Jesuits, Free Masons, Knights of Malta, and New York advertising executives.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Everything is around St.Germain, Stlukes, that unknown guy that nobody heard about...
Oh, how I do miss our old friend Musicology.Originally Posted by stlukesguild
But not probabilities.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
I have my own musicology for a brother and room-mate. Yesterday he told me that the illuminati held a near total monopoly over all scientific inquiry and that were it not for their influence we would have developed the atom bomb back in the 18th century.
I just face-palm it and wait patiently for him to cease speaking.
Yes, I know that it's commonly thought that Shakespeare was gay, based on the 20 or so sonnets to his financial patron, a certain young Lord. And even in those 20 something sonnets there are only about two, possibly three that suggest an attraction, and in none is there any mention of physical desire. On the other hand there were over a hundred sonnets to a mysterious dark lady, where physical attraction is frequently mentioned. One can never prove a negative, so I can't prove he was gay if he wasn't, but given his marriage, his children, the frequent, even bawdy heterosexuality in the plays, the fact that the young man in question was his patron, and the language toward that patron is rather conventional idolatry of a young man in the Adonis type (a trope), and there is no other suggestion of homosexuality with any other man, there really isn't much to go on to suggest Shakespeare was homosexual.
If Shakespeare was gay, so be it. I have nothing against it. It doesn't change his work one bit. But this claim to homosexuality is part of the political dynamics of today's literary academe.
Oh here's Wikipedia's entry on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuali...am_Shakespeare
Oops, after reading that, apparently I was wrong on the number of sonnets. The hundred or so were addressed to the young man, the fewer to the dark lady. I thought it was the other way around. Still, I don't think there is much to really cite on his homosexuality.
Last edited by Virgil; 02-22-2012 at 09:46 PM.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
The notion of "gay" is problematic, as that is very much a 19th century reckoning of sexuality. It is also possible that there was a promiscuous male-male sexual scene within the theatre itself that Shakespeare engaged in. Likewise, it is quite possible, that like Philip Sidney, and various other poets at the time, neither the Young Boy nor the Dark Lady were actual persons, but rather just concoctions of Shakespeare's imagination - the same way Stella was in part based on a seemingly real person, but the actual relationship would, by history seem to not have been anything like that between Astrophil and Stella.
Either way, I do not think it matters. There are moments in Shakespeare where such issues of sexuality are perhaps alluded too - relations between certain characters seeming to have questionable intentions. Still, the actual Shakespeare, like the sexuality are quite mysterious. I know not gay nor straight, I, like every other reader, knows nothing. At least we know that Christopher Marlowe had pedophile tendencies toward young men, he was explicit - Shakespeare absolutely silent.
I think the issue is saying he was straight though. Why say that? Why the urge to call him straight or gay? How does that actually effect his plays? that is the real question - the actual debates on the identity of the author are so useless to the text itself that it is punishing to see every text of Shakespeare try to mention it.
Last edited by JBI; 02-22-2012 at 09:44 PM.
I'm not sure about the dark lady, but I think the youth has been identified as one of his patrons, the earl of south hampton.
The only time I have ever come across any homosexual suggestion in the plays are those plays were there is cross dressing to hide characters. That's a rather conventional dramatic technique. Shakespeare there is playing on appearance and reality, not that characters desire to change sex or secretly desire someone of the same sex. Reading those plays as homosexual suggestiveness makes no sense at all.Either way, I do not think it matters. There are moments in Shakespeare where such issues of sexuality are perhaps alluded too - relations between certain characters seeming to have questionable intentions.
He was quiet because he didn't have those tendencies. That's even more evidence toward contradicting he was gay. If you look through my writing, you won't find those tendencies either.Still, the actual Shakespeare, like the sexuality are quite mysterious. I know not gay nor straight, I, like every other reader, knows nothing. At least we know that Christopher Marlowe had pedophile tendencies toward young men, he was explicit - Shakespeare absolutely silent.You can't prove a negative.
It's not that big deal. However, (1) historical accuracy would be nice. (2) Academic political dynamics is rather irritating and one hates to give in to it. (3) But more importantly, the context of an author's life colors the meaning of his work. If it were absolutely proven he was gay, we would probably read the plays differently. On the other hand, if it were proven that James Baldwin was really straight, then we would have to re-look at every thing he wrote.I think the issue is saying he was straight though. Why say that? Why the urge to call him straight or gay? How does that actually effect his plays? that is the real question - the actual debates on the identity of the author are so useless to the text itself that it is punishing to see every text of Shakespeare try to mention it.
There is currently growing evidence that Shakespeare was actually a Roman Catholic. The Wikipedia entry on this sells it a bit short. It's much stronger than the entry puts forth, though I agree not conclusive yet. Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare%27s_religion
If it is proven that Shakespeare was a secret Catholic in an era of Catholic persecutions, there may have to be a lot of re-assessing of his work with that in mind. I have always felt Shakespeare had a Catholic outlook to his plays, but I mostly took that as the relative closeness in theology between the Anglicans and the Catholics, and that Shakespeare had more of a remnant religious outlook. That may still be true, but a number of books have come out recently supporting Shakespeare's possible Roman Catholicism. You know, I don't think any of his plays are actually set in a protestant setting, but many are set in Italy, France, and pre reformation England. It's rather curious. Anyway the point being, an author's life is important to understanding his work.
LET THERE BE LIGHT
"Love follows knowledge." – St. Catherine of Siena
My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/
The distinction also has to be made between commonly-held beliefs of the time that we today see as racist and an unusually high amount of racism. We might be tempted to call older writers racist now as some of the archaic attitudes are no longer acceptable, but this is not accurate.
How do you know that he wasn't to any extent homosexual?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
