a word from our sponsors
See the new shakespeare.com. This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help
You wrote:>>> take that to mean - in its dismissive context - that there's
nothing to be gained by asserting any connection between
Shakespeare's interest in homoerotics and anything about
his life and times. <<<You may "take" it to mean that which it does not, but you
would err.No, the context is (and always has been) the statement that
the sonnets are autobiographical. Or, did you miss that context?The context was the recipients' insistence that, because
Shakespeare wrote of homosexuality, he must have then been
a homosexual.The context was the recipients' insistence that this may
somehow prove something, historically, which it can never do.
Of course, homosexuality existed in the Renaissance. It has
existed for as long as historical records have been maintained.
The manner in which Shakespeare "deals" with it can say very
little in the way of history, unless one wishes to generalize,
and grossly generalize.Was Blake a "product of his times"? Of course HE was. Were his
works? Maybe. Maybe not. They certainly cannot prove
anything about the historical period into which he happened
to be born.-Bruce
Posted by Bruce Spielbauer on April 10, 1997 at 17:36:07
In Reply to "you did imply it" posted by Cloten on April 10, 1997 at 16:59:09
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help