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.