INTRODUCTION


Historical Background

 Throughout history the emergence of homoerotic themes in literature had
been overlooked mainly due to the attitudes of the writers and critics of
the past.  Themes of homosexuality were traced back to the Greek empire at
times when relationships among men were of cultural significance.  According
to Seigneured in his Dictionary of Literary Themes and Motifs an example of
homoerotic educational practices were dealt with by Plato as inspired by
Socrates in an erotic association between a young pupil and his mentor in a
learning experience.  The teacher admired the youth's good looks but rarely
if ever was there any physical activity hence the birth of the so-called
Platonic (spiritual) love which was clearly reflected in Plato's Phaedrus
where Socrates is delighted by a young man's attendance (p.  610).  The
Greeks mainly reserved judgment when it came to same sex erotic involvements
in literature.  They believed men surpass their homosexuality and go on to
become adapted husbands of women.  Sodomy was mainly a subject of ridicule
in many of the plays of the time and was elaborated on in lewd physical
terms as Seigneured later explains (p.  611).  
 Seigneured then moved on to mention the high tolerance of homosexuality
among the Romans during the republic.  They, however, were not obsessed with
the nakedness of the young men as the Greeks were.  Love between men was
presented and offered without reprehension among various poets and literary
figures (p.  611).  Although at that time the old testament had brought
anti-homosexual attitudes, the church was believed to have been highly
tolerant of homosexual literary motifs (p.  612).  Seigneured saw the middle
ages as a time when homosexuality was common and accepted among the most
influential people of society.  Those people in a position to condemn such
acts were the same people involved in them.  Homosexuality was soon
abolished by the actions of opposing minorities such as the previously
tolerant Jews and with that came the end of the "gay subculture".  The
fourteenth century, nonetheless, continued to show much literary
homosexuality from other non-European cultures such as the gay tales
featured in Alf Layla wa-Layla (The Thousand and one Nights) of the Arab
world (p.  613).  
 The Renaissance as mentioned by Dynes in his "Introduction to Gay Male
Literature" was the first golden age of homoerotic poetry.  Homosexuality
was dealt with in depth in the realm of poetry due to its long association
with love and romance.  Directed mostly at young boys, it suffered immensely
from the constraints of the decades (pp.  13-4).  Seigneured in his
Dictionary of Literary Themes and Motifs notes that although homosexuality
was explicit in the works such as Christopher Marlowe's Edward II among
others, the act itself was a mortal sin and punished as a crime;  hence, it
was not endorsed and not readily acknowledged (p.  614).  The Victorian age
was likewise in its display of cruelty to writers such as Oscar Wilde.  The
hypocrisy then was the primary cause of conflict that authors suffered
between their homosexual inclinations and their social condemnation (p.
615).  It was not until the early 20th century that writers began risking
their reputation by writing essays on homosexuality.  According to Dynes in
his article "Introduction to Gay Male Literature", many studies since have
uncovered homoerotic patterns through biographical analysis of literary
achievements (p.  15).  Among the figures found to display such style was
William Shakespeare.


Thesis Statement

 Evidence shows that Shakespeare's homosexual nature is clearly portrayed in
sonnets 20, 36, 104, and 144.
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Definition of Terms

 Certain terms are often perceived incorrectly or taken for granted. For
this reason the following section presents a full explanation of the
terminology used in the text.
 Homosexuality.  Seigneured defines it in his Dictionary of Literary Themes
and Motifs as "erotic interest, sexual outlet, capacity for intense
emotional affection between persons of the same sex."  He then declares that
Jonathan Kats suggests "there is no such thing as homosexuality in general,
only particular forms of homosexuality" (p.  609).  
 Homoerotic Literature.  The possibility of love and heightened imagination
in literature that is away from the criterion of heterosexuality (p.  610).  
 Shakespeare's Sonnets.  A collection of English poems published without
consent of the author which caused much controversy concerning a number of
issues including the identity of the begetter of the sonnets and whether
Shakespeare had been the actual writer of the series, as Person declares in
his Shakespearean Criticism (p.  2).  


Portrayal of Homosexuality in Sonnet 20

  Sonnet 20 in the words of Joseph Pequiney in Person's Shakespearean
Criticism was "the grand masterpiece of homoerotic poetry" (p.  391).  A
sonnet critical in the sequence and hence so much depends on it.  It
develops to a "locus classicus" of poems that attempt to define the
emotional intimacy between the poet and his young friend.  In this sonnet it
becomes clear that the relationship between the patron and the poet becomes
much more than a friendship.  At this point the friendship has progressed to
more of a physical relationship (p.  391).  The sonnet seems to address a
young man with feminine loveliness.  His beauty is so womanlike that one may
think the sonnet is actually directed at a female.  This, however, is
opposed with the fact that the sonnet compares Shakespeare's currant
mistress and the youth on a primarily physical basis where the young friend
comes off best (see App.  A-1, line 5)).  Another point  is that no woman
would be praised for solely  her femininity as the young friend was (p.
392).  Leading to only one truth that the sonnet had obviously been
dedicated to praising and loving a young man Shakespeare greatly admired.  
  If one was to look at the content of the sonnet for the first time, s/he
might not recognize the inferred message Shakespeare tried to include.  This
is primarily due to the difficulty of the text as implied by Crossman in his
article "Making Love Out of Nothing at All:  The Issue of Story in
Shakespeare's Procreation Sonnets" (p.  464).  However when studied
carefully the sonnet appears to convey an inner meaning.  If one takes the
beginning of the sonnet (see App.  A-1, line 2) The phrase "Master Mistress"
concerns a male mistress loved like a woman but who is an in fact an
attractive male.  In addition to that, the word "Passion" seemed to have
been interpreted by many critics as what Shakespeare alluded to as his
sexual and physical aspiration.  Even though to some, such as critic Thomas
Watson, the word passion simply means "love lyric", the truth of the matter
is if it were to be interpreted as such then the true meaning of "Master
Mistress" would not be explained, as Pequiney indicates in Person's
Shakespearean Criticism (p.  391).  From this, one gathers that Shakespeare
is admitting his sexual inclination towards the young -ladylike- boy to whom
he dedicated this sonnet.
  Pequiney soon afterward maintains that if the reader were to examine the
sonnet futher s/he would discover an established personification Shakespeare
sketches of nature.  Nature was to initially fabricate a woman.  This task
was partially rendered; nonetheless the plan was retailored owing to the
fact that the maker and her creation were of the same sex -nature was
personified to be a woman- (pp.  392-3).  The  revision  was  merely  the
addition  of  the "one thing" (see App.  A-1, line 12) which distinguishes
males from females.  Pequiney declares firmly that the "one thing" is the
male genital organ that Shakespeare emphasizes throughout the sonnet.  From
the beginning of the sonnet, he claims, Shakespeare in saying "a man in hue"
(see App.  A-1, line 7) is indicating the male form meaning the genital
organ, which  was  ambiguously  brought  up  at  first  but  soon
articulated (p.  392).  Shakespeare;  nevertheless does not protest against
what Nature has done he rather identified with his fellow artist who has
defeated him by this simple addition (see App.  A-1, line 11).  The "one
thing" added may have been an obstacle challenging the poet;  but it more or
less served as the cause for his arousal (p.  393).  In the end the reader
may note that Shakespeare presents Nature as the perfect example of the
homoerotic envolvement this poet may have had or somewhat fantisised about.  


Portrayal of Homosexuality in Sonnets 36 and 144

  Authorities during the nineteenth century have accepted the theory that
the begetter of the sonnets is either The Earl of Pembroke or Southampton
for fear of homosexual allegations against the poet.  In their view, as
Knight declares in his Shakespeare and Religion, a patron with a high
position in society will always be safe from such associations (p.  254).
Shakespeare appears to defy these critics with the thirty sixth sonnet of
the series.  In this sonnet Shakespeare admits continuing the relationship
with the young aristocrat would do them both much harm as Hammond suggested
in his The Reader and Shakespeare's Young Man Sonnets.  Shakespeare feels
guilty and it is this guilt that vaguely causes a temporary separation (p.
65).  His grief increases knowing that he was responsible for the
humiliation of the young man (p.  134).  He could not ask the return of the
lover to a poet with a bad name, maintains Person in his book Shakespearean
Criticism (p.  206). Akrigg in his book Shakespeare and The Earl of
Southamptom indicates that Shakespeare was aware that connection between a
man of presumably high moral standards and a writer like himself would be
ethically degenerating (pp.  236-7).  Shakespeare was sure that the young
man would not be able to permit public acquaintance.  "What was it that made
Shakespeare think that Southampton would lose honour if he showed 'public
kindness' to him?  . . . . one is forced to suspect that some element of
homosexuality lay at the root of the trouble," claims Akrigg (p.  237).  
  Shakespeare's sonnets were divided into two groups, one dedicated to the
young man and the other to a mysterious dark lady.  This division, although
taken to be quite superficial as Landry proposes in his book Interprtation
of Shakespeare's Sonnets, is very adequate for the construction of  certain
themes (p.  5).  A direct application of this would be sonnet 144.  In this
sonnet Shakespeare makes clear his experience of both extreme homosexuality
and heterosexuality as Knight explains in Shakespeare and Religion (p.  264)
(see App.  A-3).  Shakespeare compares the two indicating that the division
of the sonnets is in accordance with the two loves he had where, as in
sonnet 20, the non-despairing  affection for the  young  man  prevails,
confirms Person in  Shakespearean Criticism  (p.  206).  


Psychological Theories On Shakespeare's Homosexuality in Sonnets 20 and 104

  It has been established by Pequiney in Person's Shakespearean Critisicm
that in sonnet 20 the poet is addressing and praising a young man with
distinct womanly qualities insofar as he was almost a woman with mere male
genitals.  Freud and most psychologists' theories of the time aided these
accusations regarding homosexual inclination.  Sonnet 20 exposed the great
emotional involvement of the sonneteer with his subject where Shakespeare
explored the young nobleman's comeliness.  Supporting Pequiney the
psychology of the time defined erotic love as the visual understanding of
beauty that Shakespeare undoubtedly delved into (p.  392).  Freud too
reinforces Pequiney's assessment by stating that what excited homosexual men
during the Greek empire, when masculine men were  abundant,  was  not this
masculenity  but  rather  the  physical  ressemblance to  women (p.  393).
Along with that Barber and Wheeler in their book Shakespeare's Power of
Development explain Shakespeare's fixation on the male genital organ as a
confirmation of Freud's assertion that the poet depreciates women and fears
them when he discovers they have no such vital part (p.  170).
Shakespeare's feelings towards the patron, according to Freud, were sexual
as Hubler unwilling reveals in his The Sense of Shakespeare's Sonnets.
Freud also indicates that it is possible to say the man did not realize he
had homosexual inclinations, while they were being clearly portrayed
subconsciously.  Hubler, however, claims that Shakespeare was aware of his
emotions being no more sexual than pure friendship (p.  98).  Wilson in his
Shakespeare's Sonnets:  An Introduction for Historians and Others, confronts
this evaluation by observing that in the sonnet Shakespeare seems to
subconsciously show dissociation of passion for friendship from sexual
desire. With that he supports Freud's theory and reveals the poet was not
conscious of the sodomy (p.  27).
 Barber and Wheeler then refer to Freud's study on the psychical processes
originating in the subliminal homosexuality of Da Vinci's work as being
somewhat related to the infatuation the reader comes across in Shakespeare's
sonnet 104 (p.  170).  The sonnet starts off with the poet rejecting the
possibility of change brought with age (see App.  A-4).  Shakespeare like
Michealangelo and Byron was characterized by abnormal sexuality in which he
searches for self-reflection, proclaims Knight in his book Shakespeare and
Religion.  This is often the result of a close mother-son relationship that
Shakespeare seemed to have had (p.  28).  Barber and Wheeler in
Shakespeare's Power of Development bear the fact that this is in
correspondence with Freudian insight and conditions for such homerotic love
where the lover is the same age as Shakespeare was when his mother was given
up (p.  171).  Shakespeare longs for the youth to stay young while he
provides him with his own lost motherly love (p.  170).  His request for the
eternal youth of the patron and the fact that the lover is quite young is
direct indication of Shakespeare's homosexual disposition in the sonnet.
 ANALYSIS


Type of Affection Shakespeare Represented

 Acceptance of the themes of homosexuality in the influential works of a
poet such as Shakespeare is highly dependent on the sexual attitudes of the
reader or critic.  Many critics preferred to eliminate such accusations and
concentrate on the sonnets themselves. Although their views might be of some
significance, one cannot but notice the effect these themes have on the
understanding of the sonnets.  Other critics, however have abolished the
homoerotic concept on the account that they are simply absurd. They believe
Shakespeare was merely showing affection to what was his young patron
friend, as Hubler denotes in The Sense of Shakespeare's Sonnets.  He insists
that affection is for both sexes alike while attraction is for the opposite
sex alone. Shakespeare, to him, spoke of his love which is not abnormal as
it was affection and normally given to any human being (p.  99).  Affection,
as Hubler refered to it, was not normaly illustrated using expressions
similar to what the reader was pressented with in sonnet 20.  C.S Lewis
explains them to be "too lover-like for that of ordinary male friendship" as
cited by Wilson in his Shakespeare's Sonnets:  An Introduction for
Historians and Others (p.  3).  Another item Hubler points out in his The
Sense in Shakespeare' Sonnets is that to the contemporaries and renaisanse
love of a friend was superior to the expresseion of love of a woman. The
words love and lover were interchangeably used to mean friendship (p.  153).
The fact of the matter is that the friend described as lover and the
friendship as love was free from signs of eroticism except in cases where
the literary figure had been associated with homoerotic themes such was Lord
Byron.  Shakespeare's sonnet twenty ,though, represents clear evidence of
erotic interest.  Furthermore, there was no actual implication that love in
the sonnets was favored to mean friendship.  Implying only that
Shakespeare's affection was presented to the nobleman with sexual intent
thereby eliminating any reasons to doubt his homosexual nature.

Significance of the Sonnets

 There have been many debates concerning whether the sonnets can conclude
that Shakespeare was devoted to homosexual practices, and if not then why
should they imply homoerotic motifs?  According to Akrigg in his book
Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton the sonnets, including the four
concerned in the text, are autobiographical.  Due to erotic involvement,
however, certain individuals  attempted  to  demonstrate  that  the  sonnet
were  written  as  exercises  for  sonneteers (p.  228).  The sonnets
previously reviewed oppose such concepts for they represent certain personal
affairs that were not taken lightly.  Shakespeare discusses issues of love
that have caused much pain as one gathers from reading sonnet 36 (see App.
A-2).  Furthermore the sonnets were not really published under consent from
the author, this indicates more reason for them to have dealt in private
matters in the sonneteer's life.  Other arguments against the  homosexual
attributes of the sonnets would be the fact that his plays, which somewhat
reflected Shakespeare's life, were free from homosexuality.  From the
history of the Elizabethan era one could infer that the theme of
homosexuality was not readily accepted, and since the plays were written to
be made public they would not mention such hushed liaisons. Contentions,
such as the later, were mainly presented by authority figures who have not
come to accept homosexuality in literature and would simply dread admitting
the availability of evidence on such matters.
 CONCLUSION


 Shakespeare, A poet and dramatist known to all, yet his life is a mystery
to many.  His sonnets have become the most famous of his works after Hamlet
due to the controversial issues that accompany them.  The most recent of
these issues is whether or nor Shakespeare had been associated with a young
noble in a homoerotic episode.  Certain sonnets presume such accusations
such as Sonnet 20, Said to be the most important of the collection when
dealing with homoeroticism; it explicates the soneteer's feelings towards
this young womanlike aristocrat.  Later however in Sonnet 36 Shakespeare
realizes such an involvement could no longer go on due to the disgrace it
would bring to both parties.  Living in grief, he continues praising the
young lord and supports Freudian theories by admitting he longs for the boy
never to grow old as he did in sonnet 104.  From this, the reader learns
that  when looked at with an open mind and with just some simple explanation
the sonnets are a clear exemplification of the suppressed homoerotic
connections during the time.  The sonnets represent Shakespeare's strong
passion with an explicit confession of desire as Knight demonstrates in his
book Shakespeare and Religion that "if a man's impassioned devotion to a
younger man, originally prompted and afterwards in part conditioned by his
beauty, is not called homosexual then we must find some new word" (p.  259).  
 WORKS CITED


Akrigg, G.  P.  V.  Shakespeare and The Earl of Southampton.  London:
Hamish Hamilton, 1968.

Barber, C.  L and Richard Wheeler.  Shakespeare's Power of Development.
Berkely:  U of 	California P, 1986.

Crossman, Robert.  "Making Love Out of Nothing at All:  The Issue of Story
in Shakespeare's 	Procreation Sonnets".  Shakespearean Criticism.  Ed.
James Person.  Detroit:  Gale Research,  	1990.  461-71.

Dynes, Wayne.  "Introduction to Gay Male Literature".  Gay and Lesbian
Literature.  Ed.  Sharon 	Malinowski.  Detroit:  St.  James P, 1994.  13-5.

Hammond, Gerald.  The Reader and Shakespeare's Young Man Sonnets.  New
Jersey:  Barnes, 	1981.

Hubler, Edward.  The Sense of Shakespeare's Sonnets.  New York:  Hill, 1962.

Knight, Wilson.  Shakespeare and Religion.  London:  Routledge, 1967.

Landry, Hilton.  Interpretations in Shakespeare's Sonnets.  Perspectives in
Criticism Series 14.  	Berkeley:  U of California P, 1963.

Person, James, Jr.  ed.  Shakespearean Criticism.  Vol.  10.  Detroit:  Gale
Research, 1990.  

Seigneured, Jean Charles.  "Homosexuality".  Dictionary of Literary Terms
and Motifs.  New York:  	Green Wood P, 1988.

Wilson, John Dover.  Shakespeare's Sonnets:  An Introduction for Historians
and Others.  2nd ed.  	Cambridge:  Cambridge U P, 1964.  


