Shakespeare's 'Master Mistress' and the Dilemma of His Sexuality - Essay Example

Shakespeare's 'Master Mistress' and the Dilemma of his Sexuality Introduction The sonnets of William Shakespeare, coupled with a few social conventions and some of the developments in his plays have suggested to some modern scholars that the sexual preferences of the Bard were inclined towards men. Some of the details of his life suggest that this might be the case as well. Love between men, however, was framed without homoerotic beliefs about showing passions and emotions in deep friendship during the time in which he lived. As women were not allowed to act in the theatre, relationships between men were framed somewhat differently than in current society (Downs, Missouri, Wright, and Ramsey 330). The idea of gender was still defined by male and female, but the division was much more deeply conditioned into society. The love that men shared was a bond that defied conventional traditions in modern society, suggesting that expressions of such love were not specifically defined by sexual attraction. Male Relationships in Shakespeare’s Time The close relationships between men were a part of the social necessities of Elizabethan England. Shakespeare wrote about this kind of relationship when he developed the characters of Antonio and Bassanio in The Merchant of Venice. According to Atkins in his book on the sonnets of Shakespeare, the relationships between men were frequently portrayed for their passionate, but asexual nature, and sometimes took precedence over marriage to women (33). In other words, the nature of the relationship was without sex, but was just as deeply emotional as it might have been had it contained that sexual component. The world was larger and communications over distances was difficult, therefore, it is understandable that close relationships with members of the same sex could be discussed in terms of passion without them being sexual in nature because time away from spouses could range in years without communications. The patriarchal society in which Shakespeare lived was very different than modern patriarchal society. As a result, the adaptation of men into female roles was actually less remote than might be expected. It is well known that women during this time period were not allowed to perform in the theatre. As well, women did not participate in a great number of activities that might take men away from them for long periods of time (Downs, Missouri, Wright, and Ramsey 331). Examples of this might be seen in military service, in governmental service, or in pursuing any profession that required travel, such as trade or exploration. The relationships that men formed may or may not have been sexual with other men, but they were not necessarily defined by a sexual component in order to be deep and intimate. As Shakespeare’s life was in the theatre, a place where women were not allowed, his experiences within the concept of gender were directed through a complexity of assigned roles. As an example, when he wrote many of his works, there was an often used device in which men would play women who were disguised as men. An example of this provided by Corrigan is that of Rosalind in As You Like It who disguises herself as a man in order to not be found in the woods. Understanding gender is essential for the male actor playing this role, but it is just as likely that there is some gender confusion (29). Sexual Identity There are distinctions within the work of Shakespeare that suggest that gender was a central concern for him. However, what must be understood that is that the discussions of gender were not the same as the discussions of sexuality. According to Foster, the divisions of modern society into gay and straight, homosexual or heterosexual, were not as identifying as they are in this age. Sexual identity was not an issue in creating a sense of self (103). Therefore, gender differences could be explored in relationship to non-sexual ties even when emotional attraction was involved. It is the rhetoric of each age, both the Shakespearian and modern, which causes some to make assumptions about Shakespeare’s own sexual preferences. In the current time period, one of the first ways in which identity is established is through sexual preference. Foster argues that this was not the case in the time of Shakespeare (103). The period of time in which Elizabeth I was in power was a period in which homosexuality was not strongly problematic in society. While her father, Henry VIII had strong laws against sodomy and prosecuted homosexuals in great numbers, Elisabeth did not pursue the matter as important. Where Henry associated sodomy with the Catholic Church and used it as a device as one of the reasons for disassociating with the Church, by the time that Elizabeth reigned this was not as much of an issue (Neill 399). As a result, the period in which Elizabeth reigned became one of great literary achievements, the ability to discuss sexuality released from the fear of retribution from the crown. The Elizabethan theatre tradition was immersed in the discussion of homosexuality (Neill 399). According to Neill Christopher Marlowe was decidedly homosexual and this is reflected in his writing. As well, the works of Michael Drayton, Edward Guilpin, and Philip Stubbs all were filled with references to homosexuality and were highly valued as writers by the crown. Because of the high level of love that Queen Elizabeth I had for the theatre and for the writers mentioned, the anti-sodomy culture of Henry VIII was diffused and this period showed a freedom to express same-sex love that had not been available in the previous generation (Neill 400). It might be surmised that because the degree to which homosexual themes were missing in Shakespeare’s plays might suggest that he was heterosexual in nature. Where Marlowe was a direct influence in many of Shakespeare’s earlier works, it is likely that if he had the same sexual nature as Marlow his works would have been far more oriented towards homosexual themes as he thrived within the Elizabethan culture. The one concept that has befuddled academics in relationship to sexual orientation has been the phrase “Master-mistress” as it appears in Sonnet 20. This concept may be interpreted for a great many different ideas, but the one thing that is clear is that the subject of this poem is a male. This creates a conflict with the premise of sexuality in relationship to how Shakespeare is viewed as his life might be reflected in his writing. Sonnet 20 A woman's face with Nature's own hand painted Hast thou, the master-mistress of my passion; A woman's gentle heart, but not acquainted With shifting change, as is false women's fashion; An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling, Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth; A man in hue, all 'hues' in his controlling, Much steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth. And for a woman wert thou first created; 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. William Herbert, third Earl of Pembroke, who was penned with his brother as a patron of the folio 1609 quarto of sonnets has often been considered to be the subject of the first seventeen sonnets, often referred to as the ‘procreation sonnets’ (Shakespeare’s Sonnets: The Complete Guide.). The theme of these works is to encourage a young man to marry and procreate for the benefit of his family. It has often been considered that through these works, the subject of the poetry was being encouraged to follow the path that his station in life required. As it is often believed that the subject was also a patron for Shakespeare, the young Earl is thought to be this subject (Neill). According to Taylor, a misconception often occurs that Shakespeare continued to write to the young Earl through subsequent Sonnets out of a homosexual love which framed his feelings for this young man. This is including Sonnet 20 which refers to a male in saying “And for a woman wert thou first created” but goes on to say “Mine be thy love and thy love’s use their treasure” (Shakespeare Sonnet 20 lines 8 and 14). It is possible that the young Earl was the subject of the poem, but it is not clear as to the nature of the relationship between them. Taking into consideration that male love was not always a sexually framed experience; it is possible that in this poem Shakespeare is expressing his love, but not his sexual attraction. The last line can be used to understand this differentiation. He states “Mine be thy love” which could mean that he has an intimate relationship with the young man. He goes on to say “thy love’s use their treasure” suggesting that the use of love, that meaning sex, belongs to women. The development of this work, however, might have been so private that publishing it was a violation of the meaning with which he framed his work. Cheney calls this a “borderline between the published and the concealed” thus the sentiments may be difficult to interpret because they were intended for a specific individual who would understand their meaning (227). Crosman further supports this concept as he suggests that the sonnets “presume a reader who is aware of their situation” (470). Therefore, the way in which Shakespeare constructs his discussion may not be accessible to the casual reader of the work. The poems, according to Greenblatt, are designed to be somewhat elusive in relationship to identity of the subject of the work. As a result, Greenblatt, in comparison to Cheney, suggests that the ‘procreation sonnets’ were directed towards the Earl of Southampton. The most interesting concept, however, is that it does not refer to anyone but a character in a play. In the play The Maid’s Metamorphosis presumed written by John Lyly which also influenced work by Shakespeare, discusses the results of Apollo turning an woman who is the object of his desire into a man as she requests in order to show his divine powers. Bate suggests that it is possible that the identity of the poems is actually the character Cesario from Lyly’s play, furthering Shakespeare’s discussion on gender. Bates suggests that in reference to the identity of the character in the sonnets that “as good an answer to any to the question to the identity of the lovely youth to whom the bulk of the sonnets are addressed is a figure that resembles Cesario” (202). He goes on to say that the phrase ‘master’s mistress’ is directly from The Maid’s Metamorphsis, taking inspiration that accompanied the sonnets in order to frame his sonnets through this phrase (Bates 202). One Last Thought At the age of eighteen, William Shakespeare was married to the 26 year old Anne Hathaway who stayed in Stafford upon Avon during their marriage, while Shakespeare took up with the theatres in London. There are many controversial accounts of his life, some suggesting that he was a bit of a scoundrel, but did have children with Hathaway before leaving for the life of the theatre (Gray 4). The fact that he married and had issue, suggests that he was inclined towards women, if not perhaps loyal to his wife. There is no guarantee, of course, that his marriage is a clear sign of his heterosexuality, but his children do suggest that he was inclined towards women during a part of his marriage. The development of his life away from his wife is more likely due to the scandals that he left behind rather than a desire to express himself through homosexual activity (Greenblatt 229). According to Mirsky, Shakspeare was not only heterosexual, but a rampant misogynist, thus suggesting that his use of women was immaterial to him, therefore his intimate relationships outside of sex was with men. The signs of his character as recorded through history suggest he was a cad, but that he was a heterosexual. Conclusion There are many ways in which Shakespeare’s sexual orientation may have been more revealed had he been attracted men instead of women. His work, while often involving gender bending ideas, does not express a particular love for men over women in the sexual sense. His love stories are usually confined to male to female love and while he may toy with that concept, he does not ever truly commit to the concept of homosexuality as a relatable relationship between his characters. In exploring his works and some of his personal history as it is known, the conclusion can be drawn that William Shakespeare was most likely heterosexual. References Bate, Jonathan. Soul of the Age: A Biography of the Mind of William Shakespeare. New York: Random House, 2009. Print. Cheney, Patrick. “"O, Let My Books Be ... Dumb Presagers": Poetry and Theater in Shakespeare's Sonnets” Shakespeare Quarterly. 52.2 (Summer 2001): 222-254. Crosman, Robert. “Making Love out of Nothing at All: The Issue of Story in Shakespeare’s Procreation Sonnets”. Shakespeare Quarterly. 41.4 (Winter 1990): 470-488. Corrigan, Paul. Shakespeare on Management: Leadership Lessons for Today's Managers. London: Kogan Page, 1999. Print. Downs, William Missouri, Lou Anne Wright, and Erik Ramsey. The art of theatre: then and now. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. Print. Evans, Gwynne and William Shakespeare. The Sonnets. Edinburgh: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print. Foster, Thomas A. Histories of Same-Sex Sexuality in Early America. New York: New York Univ. Press, 2007. Print. Gray, Joseph W. Shakespeare's Marriage, His Departure from Stratford and Other Incidents in His Life. London: Chapman & Hall, 1905. Print. Greenblatt, Stephen. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York, NY: Norton, 2005. Print. Mirsky, Mark. The Drama in Shakespeare's Sonnets: "a Satire to Decay". Madison [N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2011. Print. Neill, James. The Origins and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co, 2009. Print. Shakespeare, William, and Carl D. Atkins. Shakespeare's Sonnets: With Three Hundred Years of Commentary. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson Univ. Press, 2007. Print. Taylor, Dick “The Earl of Pembroke and the Youth of Shakespeare’s Sonnets: An Essay in Rehabilitation”. Studies in Philology. 56.1 (January 1959): 26-54. Shakespeare’s Sonnets: The Complete Guide. Wikimedia Foundation. 2012. Web. 21 April 2012. Truth, Love, and the Exotic: The Amoretti series of Edmund Spenser 1 The sonnets written by Edmund Spenser were created in a series that was intended to reflect a love affair from his life experience. There is speculation, however, that the subject of these poems is not a real woman but a device created by Spenser so that he can make his contribution to the form of the sonnet. Through the use of exotic animals and aggressive imagery, the female subject is often portrayed as the instigation of his heartache, but it is likely that this too is something he is using in order to create some form of exaggerated emotional turmoil. Through the evidence presented in the sonnets of Amoretti by Edmund Spenser and the theories by several authorities on the topic, this paper will argue that the ‘lady’ in the poems is a figment of Spenser’s imaginings. Edmund Spenser introduces his lady in the poem Amoretti in different ways that impress Louis Martz for the emotional context in which they place their relationship. To Martz these representations of the lady echo "mutual understanding that controls the series. This peculiar and highly original relationship between the lover and his lady may be our best key to the whole sequence" He adds “Spenser's lady has a very decided and a very attractive character".2 As seen through the perspective that is provided by Spenser, it is clear that the lady impresses Spenser through her intellect. Spenser writes the following as he describes the workings of the lady’s mind: "her mind adorned with virtues manifold" (Sonnet 15), her "deep wit" (Sonnet 43), her "gentle wit" and "virtuous mind" (Sonnet 79), her "words so wise" and "the message of her gentle spirit" (Sonnet 81). On first glance it would seem that Spenser is discussing a love affair with an intelligent and beautiful woman. For J.W.Lever, however, nothing different can be seen about the lady in Amoretti that makes her a unique individual in Spenser’s life, nor for the sequence in general, stating "What probably happened with Amoretti was that around about 1594 Spenser felt the urge to make his own contribution in the sonnet medium".3 He suggests that Spenser had made a combination between two collections of sonnets that are totally different in “subject-matter, characterization, and general conception”.4 The convention was to introduce personal love story in sonnet sequences; but according to Lever Spenser did not achieve it. He adds “to make up a sequence, convention required him to recount the story of his courtship, from its inspection onwards, providing an adequate record of the lovers' moods and encounters”. Though, he divides the sonnets into two 'different collections'. His division is based on the presentations of the lady through the sonnets. Lever points out that 'there are at least some eighteen sonnets best considered apart from the main group, all related to the experiences of the scorned lover'.5 Martz can not dispute the disparity within the eighteen sonnets as pointed out by Lever. Admitting that the well-presented lover commits 'huge massacres' with her eyes in the eighteen sonnets, the suggested scorned lover theory as presented by Lever can be observed. Martz explains that 'Many of these are done with such extravagant exaggeration of the conventional poses that they strike me as close to mock-heroic'6 In this paper I will concentrate on three particular sonnets in which the lady in these sonnets appears totally different from the lady that Martz observes in the sonnets, thus proving the theories as suggested by Lever on the intentions of Edward Spenser. According to Elizabeth Furlong; "Spenser's poetic imagery is indissolubly united to his conceptual meaning neither imagery nor meaning can be properly understood apart from each other nor apart from the poet's stated didactic intention"7. With this regard I will be looking at sonnets 20, 53 and 56 in which the lover and her behaviour is compared to the most exotic animals; the speaker appears complaining of his lover's cruelty and states that how hard he tries to seek her his efforts remain useless because she more cruel and more savage wild Than either lion or lioness (20. 9-10) The speaker is stating that the lion is wild and enjoys power, but is still has some mercy that it expresses for the helpless lamb as it yields out of fear for the lion. The speaker states this through these two lines: his most pride disdains to devour The silly lamb that to his might doth yield (20.7) While his lover with the same ferocity of the lion acts but she knows no mercy; Her foot She in my neck doth place And treat my life down in the lowly floor (20.3-4) Then the lover appears so proud of herself with her cruelty; Shames not to be with guiltless blood defiled, But taketh glory in her cruelness (20.11-12) So the speaker appears helpless like the lamb which becomes the prey of the wild lion and the lover behaves with no mercy. This bloody and savage scenery becomes more frustrating this time in Amoretti 53. The speaker compares the behaviour of his mistress to a wild panther on the ground that they are both engaged with their prey. So, once again he appears as a helpless prey who suffers from the seductive behaviour of the lady. Especially as panthers are known as cunning animals, this time he says she is as cunning as a panther in the way she uses her beauty to deceive him to capture him as a prey; The panther, knowing that his spotted hide Doth please all beasts, but that his looks them fray, Within a bush his dreadful head doth hide To let them gaze whilst he on them may prey (53.1-4) It is fabled that panthers known to exhale a sweet fragrance (according to the definition of panther in Oxford English Dictionary) and that they enjoy their physical beauty to use it along with their nice fragrance, to cheat their prey and capture them. This romanticized imagery of the panther allows Spenser to define his female subject in relationship to the exotic of his objectified animal. He does hide his head so as his prey would not be frightened by the ferocity of his head, his mouth with hidden teeth. Topsell describes these kinds of animals at the time of hunting and how they deceive their prey; "all four-footed animals are wonderfully attracted by their smell, but frightened by the savage appearance of their head; for which reason they catch them by hiding their head, enticing them to approach by their other attractions"8. Spenser identifies the subject of his love for her ability to behave in the same way. He shows how his love does the same trick and does the same thing; Right so my cruel fair with me doth play, For with the goodly semblant of her hue She doth allure me to mine own decay, And then no mercy will unto me show (53.5-8) Spenser still praises the beauty of his lover, because as he is complaining about her behaviour, he compares her to the beauty of the panther. Thus he gives an image of a panther hiding his head (as they have an unattractive fierce head). Here a kind of an unusual conceit is used. Albert Charles Hamilton's definition of conceit is; " A conceit is not an image… it is a piece of wit It is…. the discovery of a proposition referring to one field of experience in terms of an intellectual structure derived from another field"9. So on this basis Spenser describes his lover like these predators. This praising, regardless of her ferocity, shows that Spenser's speaker continues to be devoted to his love for the lady. With the dramatic development of the sonnets the speaker gets more disturbed by the wildness of his mistress. This time in sonnet 56, she is represented as a tiger. As Topsell explains "it has been falsely believed that all tigers be females, and that there are no males among them"10. The notions of the period of time in which they sonnets are written can be seen reflected in the ignorance and mysticism with which exotic animals were perceived. Here her image is completed and framed totally in a beastly frame. The subject treats the speaker more mercilessly; Fair ye be sure; but cruel and unkind As is a tiger that, with greediness, Hunts after blood when he by chance doth find A feeble beast doth felly him oppress (56.1-4) So she is like a tiger that catches a weak animal and makes it its prey as it falls in its grasp. According to Joan Curbet, “the beloved is now fully characterised as a predator, and at this point, the cumulative force of the various metaphors through which she has been represented is enough to prevent the reader from taking this one as a mere commonplace". 12 J.W.Lever argues " in Amoretti the use of imagery is almost as distinctive as the handling of content,… and their technique fashioned after the allegorical style, is based on calculated exaggeration, and the images employed, neither metaphors nor genuine similes, may perhaps be described as emblematic".13 What does these symbols tell us about the speaker's relationship to the lover in Amoretti? While these sonnets are commonly assumed to reflect Spenser's own courtship of his wife, it is likely that they are representative of Spenser’s perspective on what is needed to participate in the creation of the sonnet. As his work is highly expressive and exaggerations of emotional content of a relationship, it is likely that these exaggerations are representative of the false nature of the idea that the subject is someone with which he is in love. The speaker's love in the sonnets quoted above appears to show a great deal of self pride. This pride is quite unusual which may suggest the possibility of the subject being a different person for whom Spenser gives all the beautiful attributes in the other sonnets. Furthermore according to these presentations of the lover as predators 'lion, panther and tiger', the poet does not seem to be in a good situation and possibly cannot stand against the cruelty of the lover. This shift in perspective may reveal that the poems were not about a love affair, but were about creating the form for imagery that he was interested in conveying. Margaret Healy asserts that "Elizabethan and Jacobean tragedy is much preoccupied with 'the borders of the human', with depicting the type of behaviour deemed excessive, horrific, and 'in-humane', which aligned … woman with the antithesis of the nurturing mother – the murderous, unnatural monster"14 The idea of the female as monster, her otherness from the male gender made exotic through the use of exotic animal imagery is a departure from the way in which she is created in the other works. This can also be said of sonnets that follow the same logic and imagery. The poems define the female through a series of different images that do not seem to be consistent in describing her character. She is intellectually stimulating to Spenser, but her behaviour is that of an exotic animal. It is likely that Lever has created a correct theory about the construction of the Amoretti sonnet series. In creating such a wide difference in the way in which the relationship is defined, it is likely that it was, as Lever suggests, that the sonnets were built upon fragments of ideas from other works. Through the exotic animal themed images, it is clear that a concept was developed rather than a reflection of something that was being experienced. Even as Healy has suggested that it was a common Elizabethan device to relate the nature of human existence through baser concepts, the continuity is missing in creating a picture that relates to a single woman with whom Spenser shares love. Despite the way in which Martz is impressed by the way that Spenser portrays the woman that he loves, it is likely that she never existed and was an object of Spenser’s imagination, manifested into a subject of his sonnets. Notes: 1- All the quotations from Shakespeare's sonnets in this paper are from: Edmund Spenser, Amoretti in Selected shorter poems, ed. Douglas Brooks- Davies(London:Longman,1995). Further citations from the text will be identified by indicating the number of the sonnets followed by the number of the lines that been cited through the paper. 2- Edmund Spenser, Edmund Spenser's poetry, ed.Hugh Maclean(New York:Norton:1982)P. 505. 3- Louis Martz, "The Amoretti" in Hugh Maclean ed. Edmund Spenser's poetry(New York:Norton:1982)P.P 723-728. 4- Louis Martz, "The Amoretti" in Hugh Maclean ed. Edmund Spenser's poetry(New York:Norton:1982)P.P 723-728. 5- Louis Martz, "The Amoretti" P.P 723-728. 6- Louis Martz, "The Amoretti" P.P 723-728. 7- J.W. Lever "The Amoretti" in Hugh Maclean ed. Edmund Spenser's poetry(New York:Norton:1982)P.P 717-723. 8- Elizabeth Furlong, Alkaaoud, "What The Lyon Ment": Iconography of The Lion in The Poetry of Edmund Spenser. A PhD Dissertation. Accessed online via ( http://hdl.handle.net/1911/15797 )Accessed : 01/08 2010 9- Hamilton. Albert Charles, The Spenser Encyclopedia, (1990) in Google books online URl http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LPxd5sliodAC&dq=isbn:0802079237 10- Phillip Drennon Thomas, 'The Tower of London's Royal Menagerie', History Today, vol.46, (August 1996) p.p 29-35. 11- Topsell, Edward. The History of Foure-Footed Beastes (London: William Jaggard, 1607), P.P.706-7, cited from Early English Books Online. 12- Joan Curbet, " Edmund Spenser's bestiary in the Amoretti" The journal of ATLANTIS XXIV.2 ((Desember,2002) Accessed online via : (http://www.atlantisjournal.org/Papers/24_2/curbet.pdf) 13- J.W.Lever, The Elizabethan Love Sonnet (London:Methuen, 1959) P.130. 14- Margaret Healy, " Bodily Regimen and fear of the Beast: 'plausibility' in Renaissance Domestic Tragedy", in (eds), Erica Fudge, Ruth Gilbert, Susan Wiseman, At the Borders of the Human, Beasts, Bodies and Natural Philosophy in the Early Modern period,( London: Macmillan press.1999), 51-73,p.51 15- Quoted from ' The poet's place in the world: Images of the poet in the Renaissance' in (Alvin B. Kernan, The playwright as magician : Shakespeare's Image of the poet in the English Public Theatre(New Haven: Yale University press, 1979) P.32 Read More