Shakespeare query and replies

An odd Hamlet reference

I was watching "Law and Order, SVU" the other night, and as the detectives entered a classroom to arrest a substitute teacher, he was lecturing his class on how Hamlet was a eunuch. I've been pondering the statement ever since (leave it to a freak like me to pick up on the offhand comment), and can personally find no basis for such a statement, nor any scholarly debate regarding such. Any thoughts out there in Shakespeareland? I thought a spirited debate would be some fun.

posted by ldydragon on 2004-06-23 13:32:14
last updated 2004-06-23 13:32:14

Eunuch?

I don't agree with such an interpretation, but I can see how it can be arrived at. Hamlet seems a bit conflicted about many things, sexuality being one. He drives away Ophelia, is used by Freud as a type for the Oedipus Complex, and appears rather attached to Horatio. One can (and many have) imagined all sorts of sexual problems Hamlet might be having. "Eunuch" does seem a stretch--it isn't supported in the text that I am aware of--but one could make a case for sexual problems.

Or not. Too much is made of such things in my opinion. I have become convinced that much sexual interpretation of Shakespeare tells us more about our preoccupations in these latter days than about Shakespeare's ideas. This doesn't mean that Shakespeare doesn't deal with sex--particularly sexual word-play--just that feminist, gay, etc. interpretations are projections of ourselves, not Shakespeare.

posted by Harry (Harry Connors) on 2004-06-23 23:25:41
last updated 2004-06-23 23:25:41

I agree with you

I can't imagine Hamlet as a eunuch who is frustrated because he can't express his sexuality. I also agree that we try to put so much of 20th century philosophy into 16th century literature that we create false debates. The trouble is that there actually are teachers out there who tell their students these things (homosexuality in Twelfth Night, for example, came up in my literature and film class several times, but I carefully explained that there was no explicit homosexuality provided and that my students were simply being hormonally-driven teens). It sickens me to think of what damage I will have to undo from offhand, incorrect comments in TV, film and classroom.

posted by ldydragon on 2004-06-25 13:21:45
last updated 2004-06-25 13:21:45

Hi Idydragon

If your students were refering to the 12th Night film directed by Trevor Nunn (with Ben Kingsley as Fool) then I think it is pretty clear that, in that film, Antonio is played as having a pretty intense homo-erotic crush on Sebastian. I really don't think there is any way to evade that. We can't know what Shakespeare intended for that character - but that interpretation worked in that particular film. It's a pretty standard choice, actually.

I have taught 12th Night several times and have always used that film version at some point. At least one student always asks me if Antonio is gay. Now many fourteen-year-olds won't pick up on the nuances - but when asked, I reply that "in this interpretation" I believe Antonio is certainly depicted as being in love with Sebastian. No one whose social interactions include gay friends and family could possibly infer that Antonio is being depicted as straight. The character is fictional. The play can certainly sustain this interpretation for a modern audience.

How Shakespeare conceived of the character is anyone's guess. I would be very surprised, however, to somehow learn that the Lord Chamberlain's Men had no homosexual members. The theatre has traditionally been a safe haven for homosexuals. In a theatre where boys played the female parts, I should think there would be a healthy proportion of homosexual men. Gays have always been "out" among their friends in the theatre.

Kids will ask me if Shakespeare was gay. I tell that Shakespeare was married and had several children but that some of his sonnets contain homo-erotic imagery that might lead one to speculate that he was bi-sexual. There is really no way of knowing and, in any event, Elizabethans would not have understood "gay" they way it is presently perceived. There certainly would have been homosexual relationships, however. There always have been and, I supppose, there always will be.

I don't think this does any "damage". In fact I think it does rather a lot of good. Regrettably, many of my students believe homosexuality is a sickness or a perversion. Having the subject brought up in class allows me to clarify many misconceptions and to point out that, in Canada, gays are constitutionally afforded equal rights etc. I have students who say that their religion teaches that homosexuality is a perversion. I find it refreshing to point out to them that the same law that protects the rights of gays is the law that protects their right to worship according to their own beliefs. One can respect diverse opinions and beliefs without agreeing with them.

Things being "explicit" or "implicit" in the text does not solve this debate. Viola explicitly says that she will present herself to Orsino as a eunuch who can sing. Nothing further is made of the eunuch remark and Viola does no singing. We confidently explain that Shakespeare changed his mind about this bit and assigned the singing to Feste. We do this despite the explicit reference in the text. There are plenty of implicit references that could lead us to interpret Antonio as homo-erotically attracted to Sebastian. (I'll indicate them, if you wish). If we can confidently ignore explicit references that Shakespeare provides and draw inferences based on the play as a whole, I think we are obliged to admit that implicit references are what allow us to form our interpretations.

posted by David Wallace on 2004-06-26 03:16:07
last updated 2004-06-26 03:16:07

Perhaps I was too brief in my reply

The "damage" I referred to was more along the lines of the Hamlet as a eunuch comment, not the homosexuallity aspect; comments for which there is no evidence provided, either in the context of the comment or in the text itself have a lasting effect on students, especially those who don't research the basis of the statement for themeselves. I seek to undo the damage that Hollywood inflicts through misrepresentation, not interpretation.

Antonio's sexuality in the 12th Night film never came up; their questions were from reading the text itself and seeing their classmates act out the scenes (cold readings).

I usually spend time talking about the fact that male to male relationships were very important to the Elizabethans and reference Benedick and Claudio. There is no evidence to support a homosexual relationship between the two, but clearly their friendship is, initially, more important that Benedick's new-found love. I talk about Sebastian and Antonio as having this sort of friendship, even though they have just met. If I believed, even for a second, that my students (in this school only) could handle such an intense discussion, I would perhaps allow the pursuit of homo-erotic ideas in a debate. Perhaps another district or a college course would allow me this freedom. I think there could be great merit in such a debate.

I agree that it would be beneficial to discredit the theory students have of homosexuality as a 'disease' of sorts. Unfortunately, I don't have the caliber of students who could handle that 'mature' of an idea.

posted by ldydragon on 2004-06-29 12:06:16
last updated 2004-06-29 12:06:16