IIRC, 'homosexual' -- the term, that is -- was coined in the 1880s.

Behold one of the great controversies!

Nothing like a good controversy.

There was of course a notion long before this that someone might have a preference for people of the same sex (eg Edward II, James I, various other famous bods) but this wasn't generally seen as exclusive or fixed, something that made them a different kind of person; it was more a quasi-gastronomic matter of taste.

So, to return to the start of this conversation, in Shakespeare's day there would have been an awareness that some people had homosexual preferences. In fact, if this page is correct, by the time of Shakespeare's later works (written, IIRC, in some cases specifically for James I), to condem such things openly wouldn't have been a great idea.

Hmm, I think I'd take that page with a large grain of salt. (Especially this: "Much to the embarrassment of the Vatican, the Catholic theologian Boswell has uncovered proof that, up until the fourteenth century, the church was routinely performing wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples"...that's actually been pretty conclusively discredited if I'm not mistaken.) I like the slogan "Thank a Homosexual for Your Bible" though!

(Please pardon a sidebar, here. My travelling companion Becky and I will be in London without plans on 13 May, awaiting a flight out on the 14th. Are there any London Buffistas who might like to meet up and spill a few libations? The profile address is working.)

t /sidebar

I feel all out of my depth in regards to the historical context of Shakespeare's work since I've avoided the subject like the plague (the thought of all that referencing for essays frightened me deeply). Though I do sometimes wonder whether it's even possible to do an English Major properly without having studied history.

In my opinion, R&J is more about "Look what a pair of nitwits they are!" (a la Anthony and Cleopatra) than about Twoooo Wuuuuuv.

Me and a friend of mine have a famous argument about Baz Luhrmann's R+J, where she thought he over-romanticised the story and I thought the 'look at the dumb-as-fuck teenagers' aspect was pretty blatant. Admittedly, though, most of my love for that movie comes from it's absolutely gorgeous score. I'm such a whore for a good score, which is another excuse I use for the whole Titanic fiasco (Celine Dion aside of course--I'm speaking strictly instrumentals).

To be annoyingly on topic - I just watched Buffy, the Willow-turns-into-Warren episode. Am I the only one who doesn't hate Kennedy? She's not a favourite character or anything, but I like her and Willow together, more than I ever liked Tara/Willow t /sacrilege Does she get rampantly irritating later in the season or something? Because the fandom hate-on just seems mystifying to me at the moment.

Edit: Hmm something seems to be eating the last paragraph of all my posts -- wait, it's not doing it anymore, so nevermind. And I just realised in the re-type that I missed something out, so--more editing. Someone pry my hands from the keyboard or I'll never stop.

Yes-- salt taken. Here's another interesting page. At the moment, I've only skimmed, but it raises some interesting points:

from the early seventeenth century, if not earlier, there was a widespread appreciation of the existence of a sort of transvestite and male prostitution subculture, and by the early nineteenth century it was often assumed in court cases that a married man was less likely to be guilty of buggery offences with another man.

Though I do sometimes wonder whether it's even possible to do an English Major properly without having studied history.

Well, that's what I did...but that does mean I always feel like I'm fudging a lot on history (ha, now I tell you all!), and literary studies is more history-focused than it's ever been, so I'd definitely recommend doing some history if you have the chance/inclination. (Then again maybe insanely detailed historical analysis will go out of fashion in lit crit and we can all get back to good old fashioned close reading or inpenetrable abstract theorising...here's hoping! t wink )

That last link looks terrific and very reliable Am-Chau; Jeffrey Weeks is an extremely well-respected historian in this area.

Jeffrey Weeks is an extremely well-respected historian in this area.

That's good to know-- I'll give it the time for a careful read through.

Then again maybe insanely detailed historical analysis will go out of fashion in lit crit and we can all get back to good old fashioned close reading or inpenetrable abstract theorising...here's hoping!

Dear lord, please let this happen. I get to have two Arts subjects a semester, I don't wanna do history! t /whine My main reason for avoiding the subject was the having to have a source which will back up your wild theories (whereas in English you can have a theory and there's no need for anyone but the marker to agree with you *cough*), but since nothing can be as hellish as the citing required of my first Law assignment, I should just give up on using that as an excuse.