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 This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.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

All of this, of course...

Thanks, you have confirmed that you were in fact generalizing.

You wrote:

>>> There is no evidence that anybody
in the renaissance understood sexuality to be a definitive
identity-defining trait. <<<

And, of course, there is no evidence to the contrary
(the direct contrary, of course).

>>> So nobody would say "I'm gay" or
"I'm bi." <<<

No, although they certainly had their own slang
terms for same. In other words, what is your point?

>>>> So the social meaning of a character's sexuality
is different in different historical moments. <<<

Not necessarily.

>>> Regardless
of what the historical Shakespeare did or didn't do, we can
he understood sexuality differently than do we. <<<

Nope.

None of the above, of course, has anything to do with
the issue.

-Bruce

Posted by Bruce Spielbauer on April 10, 1997 at 17:44:48
In Reply to "Nope" posted by Cloten on April 10, 1997 at 17:27:47

 Replies

• The issue seems to morph conveniently Cloten 17:52:07 4/10/97 (0)

 Post a Reply

Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help