As my second installation of Sonnet Saturday begins (it’s almost 11pm here, so it’s still technically Saturday), I had to include my second favorite sonnet written by the Bard. Sonnet #20, is one of my favorite because of the language and imagery, but also the underlying meaning of true love versus physical satisfaction. And I almost forgot, the possible homoerotic and gender queer undertones. Hmmm…
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,
Which 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.
In almost every Shakespeare class I have taken, the debate has come up, “Is Shakespeare homosexual?” During Shakespeare’s time is was acceptable to have affection for another man. Men played women in performances, men were companions. It wasn’t thought of as strange to have a very close male friendship. To me, this almost sounds like a Renaissance version of the recently invented “Bromance”, but either way, it’s not something that offended me. Women can be friends, so why is it so strange to see two very close heterosexual men? The other side of this debate is that Shakespeare did in fact have a young man (hence the amount of sonnets written about him) whom he felt romantic attraction to. A great example of this type of “sugar daddy” relationship is in The Merchant of Venice (Antonio and Bassanio anyone? Totally more than friends in my opinion!!) Maybe Shakespeare did share some of his money and fame with a young aspiring writer when he was married. For these reasons, this sonnet has made scholars and readers puzzled over the obviously sexual undertones in this sonnet.
The sonnet basically describes a beautiful man created with delicate women’s features, a gentle heart, and dazzling eyes. This man is not likely to change his mind like most women tend to do, and is also sincere. More importantly, the gender ambiguity in the words “master-mistress” is mentioned to show the merging of female and male traits. Mother Nature began to fall in love with her creation, and made a mistake adding a part that would make it so the speaker of the sonnet cannot have this beautiful creature. What would that part be? A penis (isn’t it always something sexual in English class?)! The line, “But since she prick’d thee out for women’s pleasure” clearly mentions the male anatomy in a less than pleasing way. I’ve never been a fan of that term myself. The speaker realize that he was made for women and for their own pleasure. So, if the speaker cannot have his body, then he at least desires his love.
Why do I love this sonnet? I’ve always wondered if Shakespeare was gay myself, but even after reading many of his works and sonnets I still cannot figure it out. I like to think that this sonnet shows readers that the physical aspect of love and attraction is not as important as the personal connection one makes with another human being throughout their relationship. The speaker knows that it would be impossible to be with the young man in the sonnet because he too is a man. Physically they cannot do what a man and woman can do, but they still can love one another. I like this sonnet because the emotion the speaker shows is so strong. He loves this young man and is saying how just knowing that he has the young man’s love is enough for him to carry on.
Now, in 2010, I like to think that homosexuality has become more widely accepted than in Shakespeare’s time. Do you think that people still feel the same way as the speaker of this sonnet felt?
Well, Homosexuality is more accepted now compared to before. I would like you to watch the music video of Lady gaga’s song Alejandro. It promotes homosexuality.
[Reply]
I don’t know if he was gay necessarily, but why does the debate come up? In actuality what IS known about the actual Shakespeare is very little, it isn’t even known if Shakespeare was the actual author or just the front man while a ghostwriter actually wrote the stuff.
[Reply]
I’ve never really thought about Shakespeare being gay or not. I would say that now in 2010 people probably don’t feel the same way for the most part. I mean, I’m sure coming out is really hard and stressing, but I don’t think people see it as not being able to be with the same sex these days, obviously. I would imagine over time people learned they could compromise with the physical aspect of same sex relationships. Obviously, it won’t be exactly like a male and female, but there are other ways to become physical per se.
Maybe, if someone grew up in a very strict household and really is too afraid to be themselves and/or it conflicts with their religion that they value 100% then I’d say it would be the same as Shakespeare’s time.
[Reply]
Again, reading this poem, I had no idea what it was talking about. I don’t understand how someone, such as yourself, can read something like that and actually understand what they are saying. That is a talent that I do not possess.
[Reply]