Sonnet 29:homesexual references
Jenny Field
Does anyone think it possible to sustain references to homosexuality in
Sonnet 29. I was thinking specifically of "with friends possess'd" (ie
sexually), the lark (penis) "arising", singing hymns (hims)"heaven's
gate" (anus)
Bart Durham
Of course these things are homosexual references. Shakespeare, most
particularly in the sonnets, is full of these. I am hetero, so for a
while, as a small town country boy, I had trouble with that. Now, in
this enlightened age I can respect his orientation.
The whole thing comes about from admirers in years past who didn't want
to admit he was gay. So they twisted his words and tried to avoid the
obvious. Today, I hope we can keep the issues of his talent and his
sexuality apart.
Stephanie Surprenant
Don't you think that would be stretching it just a tadÉ? For
myself, I think of this sonnet as a monologue from a person who
is explaining how much hisé/her significant other means to him/her.
I am sure we have all, from one time to another, felt down on
ourselves, and realize how nice it is to have someone truly
care about you when everyone else seemed to turn away.
Anyway, that's how I look at the sonnet.
Bob.
Home
Bart Durham wrote:
>
> Jenny Field wrote:
> >
> > Does anyone think it possible to sustain references to homosexuality in
> > Sonnet 29. I was thinking specifically of "with friends possess'd" (ie
> > sexually), the lark (penis) "arising", singing hymns (hims)"heaven's
> > gate" (anus)
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Of course these things are homosexual references.
What? No. They're not "of course" homosexual references. To interpret
this passage as indicating homosexuality is sheer conjecture. Nothing
more. There's no "of course" about it. Prove me wrong. Prove it. Setting
aside issues of literary convention, do you also think, like Twain, that
because he used a few legalistic terms he was lawyer. Do you think, like
poor Freud of Dostoyevsky, that because he entertained the murderous
mind so well, he was also a murderer? Using your lexical prowess I could
as easily interpret the first quatrain as indicating that Shakespeare
had no feet -- "bootless cries" -- see? He was actually a pan handler
wishing he had some moeny --> "Wishing me like to one more rich in
hope." "Featured like him..." --> and at this point he is wishing he had
feet. "... like him with friends possessed..." "friends" means feet;
that is, he wishes he were possessed of feet "like him". "..desiring
this man's art..." "art" being the ability to walk. The line "Like to
the lark at break of day arising" is clearly a pun on "lark", that is,
it will be a lark if he ever stands again because he is "bootless" (has
no feet). Notice also the "sullen earth", with which he is in constant
contact. But in the end, like any good beggar, he scorns to change his
"state with kings". Shakespeare was actually a pan handler. Of course,
the Stratfordians have been concealing this knowledge for hundreds of
years. They have twisted his words to keep from the public this shameful
knowledge.
> Shakespeare, most
> particularly in the sonnets, is full of these.
Yes. There are echoes of his "bootlessness" throughout the sonnets. Poor
man, having no feet. Consider how often he discusses his poverty. His
"want of invention". It's shameful, but it's true. Shakespeare was a pan
handler. The truth must out.
> I am hetero, so for a
> while, as a small town country boy, I had trouble with that. Now, in
> this enlightened age I can respect his orientation.
Me too, I'm ashamed too. But why blame it on the country? I suppose
country boys don't know about these things. I didn't. We didn't have pan
handlers in our "country". We were all country folk. I'm glad, in this
enlightened age, we can respect the plight of pan handlers.
> The whole thing comes about from admirers in years past who didn't want
> to admit he was gay. So they twisted his words and tried to avoid the
> obvious. Today, I hope we can keep the issues of his talent and his
> sexuality apart.
Agreed. Cursed Stratfordians. They've hidden the truth all along.
They've twisted his words. I too think we should keep issues of his
"feetlessness" and talent aside.
By Me
J.S.B.
Peter Wilson
> Bart Durham wrote:
> >
> > Jenny Field wrote:
> > >
> > > Does anyone think it possible to sustain references to homosexuality in
> > > Sonnet 29. I was thinking specifically of "with friends possess'd" (ie
> > > sexually), the lark (penis) "arising", singing hymns (hims)"heaven's
> > > gate" (anus)
> > ------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Of course these things are homosexual references.
>
> What? No. They're not "of course" homosexual references. To interpret
> this passage as indicating homosexuality is sheer conjecture. Nothing
> more. There's no "of course" about it. Prove me wrong. Prove it.
..many lines deleted...
> > The whole thing comes about from admirers in years past who didn't want
> > to admit he was gay. So they twisted his words and tried to avoid the
> > obvious. Today, I hope we can keep the issues of his talent and his
> > sexuality apart.
>
> Agreed. Cursed Stratfordians. They've hidden the truth all along.
> They've twisted his words. I too think we should keep issues of his
> "feetlessness" and talent aside.
>
> By Me
>
> J.S.B.
J.S.B., You might consider reading
>*Such Is My Love: a study of
> Shakespeare's Sonnets* by Joseph Pequigney (U. of Chicago, 1985).
> Pequigney writes from a gay-studies perspective, and while some
> of his argument is far-fetched and much is overstated, it is
> a thoughtful and thought-provoking work.
This was suggested to me by Herschel Browne.
I would also suggest a new book by Professor Garber (a Stratfordian):
"Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (1995).
She identifies Shakespeare (in Chapter 22 ?) as "bisexual".
It is always good to keep an open mind... : )
Regards, Peter.
Bart Durham
Dear Peter, What makes it fun is that neither of us can show the other
to be wrong, but both have strongly held and not unthoughful positions.
Thanks for your comments. Clever and thought provoking (particularly
where you called me on being a "country boy." (What does that have to
do with it? You're right)
Bart Durham
GOOD POINT. I CAN'T ARGUE WITH THAT OR WITH GOOD INTENTIONED AND
PRINCIPALED SCHOLARSHIP. Regards, Bart
Jim Gillogly
In article <peterw-1408...@bmermb9a.bnr.ca>,
Peter Wilson <pet...@nortel.ca> wrote:
>I would also suggest a new book by Professor Garber (a Stratfordian):
>"Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (1995).
>She identifies Shakespeare (in Chapter 22 ?) as "bisexual".
OK. Some scholar in the last year or so made headlines claiming Jane Austen
was homosexual. As Mr. Dole would say, "Whatever."
>It is always good to keep an open mind... : )
James "The Amazing" Randi said "We should be open-minded, but not so much
that our brains fall out."
--
Jim Gillogly
Mersday, 24 Wedmath S.R. 1996, 19:07
deborah
Jim Gillogly <j...@acm.org> writes:
>In article <peterw-1408...@bmermb9a.bnr.ca>,
>Peter Wilson <pet...@nortel.ca> wrote:
>>I would also suggest a new book by Professor Garber (a Stratfordian):
>>"Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life (1995).
>>She identifies Shakespeare (in Chapter 22 ?) as "bisexual".
homosexual. She cares less about Shakespeare, in this book, than in reducing
bisexual invisibility.
Deborah
Danv96
Sure, there may be homosexual references in that sonnet. However, some of
the respondents, curiously took the tact that that was implying that
Shakespear was homosexual. Why can't he have 'references' there? Where is
Shakespear's much touted 'negative capability"?his talent for putting
himself in someone else's shoes and feelings and using the words and
sentiments that they would use?
Part of the problem we have with interpreting the sonnets (if they really
need interpreting) is that we assume that whatever Shakespear writes in
them is somehow some more personal statement than his plays, and that he
is not assuming some persona for his sonnets. My own interpretation is
that he IS assuming a persona, maybe even playing different parts at
different times in the sonnets. I half suspect that these were not
necessarily sincere works of poetry (albeit very beautiful). I even
suspect that the entire cycle of sonnets represents a collaborative
effort, a 'correspondence of poetry' between two or more people, but it
was eventually published all under one name. Read the sonnets as a sort of
'conversation' between two people, and they DO make a sort of nice sense.
Bart Durham
============
Good point. I have to admit that Shakespeare was quite adept and
capable of saying contradictory things (reputation in Othello) quite
well and putting himself in characters' shoes without committing
himself. Other examples are religion, women's rights, "sack (wine)"
(Henry IV, pt2). You definitely get in trouble if you say that a
position stated by a character is the position of Shakespeare.
