Desire, Passion, and Homosexuality: Exploring WilliamShakespeare’s Sonnets

By Carly Hunter

When in eternal lines to time thou growest.So long as men can breath, or eyes can see,So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.(18.12-14)

In William Shakespeare’s collection of Sonnets the evolution

of language is pertinent, especially in the evaluation of an

underlining queer context. For the past four hundred years

Shakespeare has been regarded as one of the most significant

dramatist and sonneteers. Through his work, he has transformed

the meaning of love, desire, and passion. Our understanding of

Shakespeare’s writing is ever changing and suggests the

development of contemporary language. The adaptation of

Shakespeare’s language to contemporary understandings lends

itself to the emergence of a queer appreciation of his work. The

emergence of a queer alteration has been long understood and has

shaped a new understanding and interpretation to Shakespeare’s

wittings, particularly the Sonnets. Through the exploration of the

Sonnets, controversy has arisen predominantly, whether Shakespeare

was illustrating a homoerotic love or a hetero-social notion of

Hunter 2

friendship. To create an understanding of the presence of

homosexuality within Shakespeare’s Sonnets we must return to the

base of homosexuality in Renaissance England, as well as the

emergence of the study of Queer theory. William Shakespeare’s

collection of Sonnets demonstrates a clear homosexual theme and

with the increased understanding of homosexuality since the

Stonewall revolution, the comprehension of the Sonnets is

increased to a clear depiction of homoerotic love, passion, and

desire.

Alan Bray states in “Homosexuality in Renaissance England”

that “the dark constraints of the monkish Middle Ages were past:

sexual artistic freedom went hand in hand” (7). The social,

political, and religious intolerance of homosexuality during the

Renaissance constructed a platform of a classified nature, yet it

was present in much of society. The Elizabethan social setting

shaped homosexual circumstances with the unmarried servant class,

as well as the theatre. The unmarried servant class were exposed

to homosexuality for the reason that the male and female servants

were segregated, and as a result they had to find alternate ways

of “sexual outlets:” “There was considerable pressure on an

Hunter 3

unmarried servant to find alternative sexual outlets;

homosexuality was one of these, an alternative made easier by the

common practice of male servants sleeping together” (Bray 47).

Similarly, the social setting shaped the theatrical environment

because of the all-male cast and directors. The Renaissance

theatre, as it has been known, created an environment open to the

display of homosexuality and was frequented by all social groups

but was avoided by highly religious groups and political figures:

“The theatre of [the Elizabethan era] was frequented by virtually

all social groups, and when-with a Puritan’s distaste for drama-

[…]” (Bray 35).

The display of male relationships were often left uncertain

because of the display of male affection present in the

Renaissance; it was not unlikely for men to sleep in the same bed

together and share physical displays of affection towards one

another. This display of affection made the distinction between

close friends and “sodomite” hard to distinguish. Furthermore,

the religious constraints allocated the political convictions for

homosexual relationships. In 1533, “An Acte for the punysshement

of the vice of Buggerie” (Bray 15) was in acted in which the

Hunter 4

punishment of homosexuality or sodomy was hanging. This act was

not lifted until 1861 and influenced the tone of the social,

political, and religious environment. With the establishment of

the social, political, and religious setting of homosexuality in

Elizabethan England, Shakespeare’s Sonnets challenge the ideal of

male friendship and male sexual attraction and have thus

instilled controversy concerning the sonnets discussing the young

man and the juxtaposed sonnets surrounding the Dark Lady.

Before the collection of Shakespeare’s Sonnets can be

discussed, the historical context of homosexuality must be

addressed in order to shape an understanding of the contemporary

analysis of the young man sonnets. Over the past twenty-five

years or so there has been a notable shift in the amount of

research and interest in Queer studies. Wayne R. Dynes and

Stephen Donaldson argue: “…Powerful currents of research and

writing on homosexuality, lesbianism, and bisexuality have

rippled through widening channels, finding outlets in scores of

journals affiliated with more than a dozen disciplines”(V). With

the emergence of a modern sexual discourse, the controversial

interpretations of past works are recognized through a new

Hunter 5

understanding and insight into the meanings behind the language.

The evolution of homosexuality is demonstrated from The

Renaissance through Stonewall, however the occurrence of

homosexuality has been depicted throughout time and cultures. The

thirteenth century lent itself to the growing intolerance of

homosexuality through the strict view of Christianity. From the

intolerance brought the emergence of the imaginative reality and

the crucial contributions of the Renaissance.

Through the historical background of homosexuality, the

emergence of a queer language and exploration is illustrated

through Oscar Wilde, who is revered as the writer who introduced

the beginning of a gay fiction. Through his writing, the

revelation of a homosexual experience was developed as the

exploration of the individual experience, as well as the

emergence of a queer community. Claude Summers argues, “Oscar

Wilde both most fully exemplified a way of being homosexual at

the end of the century and created the most enduring gay fictions

of the day” (20). A characteristic of Wilde’s writing is that of

the recovery of an “Arcadian” past where homosexuality is

accepted, self-realization, and the illustration of a

Hunter 6

destabilization of self. Oscar Wilde’s writing created a form

that much of his modern and contemporary predecessors have

followed. Through Wilde’s infamous trial, the illustration of the

lack of tolerance towards open homosexuality was exposed.

Inadvertently, the trial also allowed others to validate their

homosexual desires. From Wilde’s trial, the dimensions of

homosexuality steadily inclined, and with the occurrence of the

Stonewall riots caused an exponential growth in the homosexual

subculture.

The Stonewall riots occurred at the Stonewall Inn, which was

a known gay bar in New York City. The riots took place on June

27th and 28th, 1969 and motivated the gay liberation movements and

allowed for a richer study in homosexuality. Summers also

clarifies that “Stonewall was itself the culmination of decades

of activism, and the emergence of gay men and lesbians as a self-

conscious minority […]”(18). The force behind Stonewall was the

desire to change the consciousness of the larger society.

Stonewall and the gay liberation shed light on the isolation

homosexuals experienced from the larger society: “The isolation

and alienation from the larger society that are typically

Hunter 7

concomitant with attainment of homosexual identity […]” (Summers

14). Furthermore, Stonewall lent to the creation of a queer

studies and a complex understanding of queer authors and text

that illustrate an underlining homoeroticism. The sexual

revolution that bore itself after Stonewall, the tone of

homosexuality drastically changed. Since Stonewall, the study of

homosexuality has changed from a medical disorder to being

studied interdisciplinary. The attention has also changed to a

study of their community instead the individual struggle.

Homosexuality emerged from a subculture to that of a

mainstream notion of the human experience. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

states in The Epistemology of the Closet: “The epistemology of the closet

has given an overarching consistency to gay culture and identity

throughout this century is not to deny that crucial possibilities

around and outside the closet have been subject to most

consequential change, for gay people” (68). The notion of gay men

creating their own subculture has been a consequence of sexual

intolerance; the evolution of a queer theory created a new notion

of previous works of literature. Correspondingly, many of

Shakespeare’s works have been re-evaluated to be situated by a

Hunter 8

queer lens. Although, such Shakespearian works as the Sonnets have

been situated as displays of homoerotic desire and love, the

controversies that have arisen have determined to be complex.

Over the development of Queer theory, the study of

Shakespeare’s Sonnets have been closely evaluated as contentious.

However, the controversy is not just the theme and tone of the

Sonnets, but the scholarly argument of Shakespeare’s exhibit of

friendship or that of sodomy. The separation throughout the

academic community is specifically contributed to the first

hundred and twenty-six sonnets having a homoerotic tone. Many

scholars agree that the narrator possesses a deep love and

affection for the young man, yet the source of this desire is

questioned and disputed. Thus, the question that is posed is

whether the love for the young man is drawn from the Renaissance

notion of homosocial friendship or whether the young man and the

narrator have a homosexual relationship. The affectionate display

of friendship common in the Renaissance creates opposition in the

intent; Robert Matz argues in his article The Scandals of Shakespeare’s

Sonnets that “a distinction between love of male friends and the

physical, interested and ‘shifting’ or momentary ‘love’s use’

Hunter 9

between men and women” (487). Through the discussion of the

Sonnets tone, many modern and contemporary writers have gained

inspiration of artistic valor from the young man sonnets. Such

writers as Samuel Taylor Coleridge, William Wordsworth, and Oscar

Wilde have contemplated the young man sonnets and have gained the

contemporary view of the Sonnets as a homosexual display of love

and desire.

The inspiration of Shakespeare’s sonnets in contemporary

literature is most openly viewed in Oscar Wilde’s The Portrait of Mr.

W.H. This piece of literature is not only important because it is

among one of the earliest to explore openly gay themes, with a

stance as an original coming-out story. In the story the

protagonist “discovers his homosexuality through the study of

Shakespeare’s Sonnets“ (Summers, 20). Through Wilde’s narrative

the establishment of the Sonnets as a new way for the community to

connect literature, art, and homosexuality is shown to validate

and anchor the young boy sonnets in an ever-accustoming state. It

is not that contemporary audiences view the Sonnets as

homoerotic, but that the establishment of a queer language has

been established to allow a greater understanding of

Hunter 10

Shakespeare’s writing. The appreciation of his writing is placed

in an awareness of the individual and the greater social analysis

of the era.

Though there has been much scandal surrounding the Sonnets,

the scholars have a commonality of “queerness” presented in the

subject matter. Nevertheless, the Shakespearian scholars differ

on the motivation behind the presence of “queerness”. Joseph

Pequigney states in his book Such is My Love:

Interpreters can be divided into two groups, very

unequal in size. In the smaller one are the few who,

sometimes to their discomfort, find sexual attraction

revealed toward the friend; in the larger one are the many who

reassure themselves and us that such an

attraction, far from being affirmed, is in fact

denied. (30)

Aranye Fradenburg discusses the queer nature as a display of

Oedipal love. Her Freudian argument is strong when looking at

sonnet 23, yet the strength of her argument dwindles when

evaluating the more directly homoerotic Sonnets. She addresses

many of the homoerotic sonnets as the narrator’s unresolved

Hunter 11

erotic love for his mother and his father. Fradenburg states,

“Time, morality, aging are always around Shakespeare’s Sonnets

because we are infants, we are in love with people a lot older

than we are, and they with us, and we all ’know’ it, if not

consciously…the adults passionate love for the child is also in

the child and in the adult she will become” (320). This is at the

core of her argument and she consistently returns to the child’s

desire for the parents and vice versa, yet what her argument is

lacking is the attention to the “queerness” presented throughout

the first hundred and twenty-six sonnets, as well as the last

section of sonnets addressing the dark lady.

The theme of the sonnets directed towards the young man

exposes a desire for the narrator to gaze upon the man’s beauty,

while also explores such themes as the constraints of marriage

and the narrator’s desire for the young man to produce a male

heir, therefore his beauty may pass on throughout time.

Additionally, Fradenburg’s argument that the dark mistress

represents the narrator’s mother further illustrates her

inability to see the correlation between the narrator’s love and

attention to the young man and the juxtaposed depiction of

Hunter 12

disgust and hatred for the dark mistress. It has been stated that

Fradenburg’s argument weakens due to her lack of acknowledgement

of the homoerotic tone. It is understandable that she is viewing

the Sonnets in the theme of an Oedipal love, but her lack of

acknowledgment hinders her argument from adding to the larger

question of “queerness” or the lack thereof. While Fradenburg

argues the Sonnets are controversial for their supposed

representation of Oedipal love, Robert Matz argues towards the

contemporary notion of “queerness” in the young man sonnets. Matz

anchors his article “The Scandals of Shakespeare’s Sonnets” in

disputing Margareta De Grazia’s claim of male friendship in the

Renaissance, and he does argue that the young man sonnets are the

subjects of a homoerotic desire that cannot be distinguished from

Renaissance male relationships. However, with his assertion he

does not allow for a broader landscape of contemporary

understanding of homoerotic love. Matz also neglects many of the

sonnets that display the poet’s carnal desire for the youth and

the sexual union between the two men.

De Grazia goes on to asserts that the Sonnets are construed

as improper not because they are directed towards a male, but

Hunter 13

that the sonnets directed towards the dark lady are vulgar in

tone and language. The “readings of the young man sonnets have

concealed a personal scandal that was never there; and readings

of dark mistress sonnets have blank to the shocking social peril

they promulgate” (De Grazia, 477). Continuing, De Grazia makes

her stance of: “ changing reception of the Sonnets marks a shift

from an early modern concern with sex as a social category to

modern understandings of sex as a personal one” (478). Her

argument goes on to state that the promiscuous “black” woman

should be overlooked while Shakespeare’s homosexual identity

becomes the center. However, the presence of the dark mistress in

essential to the young man sonnets; the contrast between the two

furthers the appearance of homoeroticism by focusing on the

narrator’s multi-dimensional relationship with the man and the

narrator’s stark relationship to the dark mistress. Matz argues:

“[…] the potential scandal of the sonnets to the woman cannot be

understood in isolation from the potential scandal of the sonnets

to the man, just as the construction of masculinity and

femininity, more generally, cannot be understood independently

from one another” (483). It is evident that Matz, De Grazia, and

Hunter 14

especially Fradenburg are lacking the assertion that

Shakespeare’s sonnets have evolved to be viewed as homoerotic

because of the development of queer theory. Matz touches on the

idea, although he does not fully develop the importance of the

theory in relation to the Sonnets.

William Shakespeare’s Sonnets dedicated to the young man

allow for an internal conflict to be explored. Through the

Sonnets, Shakespeare explores the social influences of marriage

and the narrator’s analysis of the young man’s beauty. The

Sonnets explore the conventions of beauty through the narrator’s

comparison of the young man to the dark mistress. The concept of

love and time in the Sonnets is personified in positive and

negative aspects. The notion of time, for the youth, is

paralleled with the concept of fair beauty and with this the

anticipation of the youth’s fading beauty is viewed as a

destructive element. Joseph Pequigney states, “All [the] sonnets

of the opening movement give expression to one compelling case,

that of saving from time and wrack the rare and ravishing beauty

of the youth addressed” (7). The theme of sexual yearning is

paired with natural imagery seen in both the young man and the

Hunter 15

dark mistress sonnets. However, the natural imagery and setting

in the Sonnets depict the immense contrast between the narrator’s

impressions of both figures. The scheme of linking the sonnets is

operate in viewing them as a whole collection. Through the young

man sonnets the occurrence of natural imagery mirrors the beauty

of the man, and imposes the social constraints the narrator is

faced with: “Beauty is vulnerable to time but helpless- […] since

it has recourse to reproductive ‘increase’ for survival; and,

rather than being personified of the youth” (Pequigney, 9).

In sonnet three “Look in thy glass” is imbedded with the

narrator’s notion of the young man selfish inconsideration to

marry and preserve his beauty through offspring:

Look in thy glass, and tell the face thou viewest

Now is the time that face should form another;

Whose fresh repair if now thou not newest,

Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother (3.1-

4)

The appearance of the narrator attempting to capture the young

man’s beauty through an heir is contrasted with the narrator’s

attitude of the man wasting his beauty, by means of time. The

Hunter 16

mode of preserving the youth’s beauty is procreation: “Now is the

time that face should form another” (3.2). The narrator continues

with the assertion that any fair woman would lend her womb to

assure his beauty is passed on: “[The] mirroring of the market is

especially the case given more socially assertive claims about

the equality of the friends, rather than the hierarchy of vassal

and lord, or lover and beloved” (481). It is important to

remember that the young man is of noble birth, and thus their

relationship is further isolated. Shakespeare’s exploration of

the young man’s beauty is paired with the image of the mirror,

suggesting the youth’s beauty will be reflected in future

children, and thus will be a reminder of his beauty once it has

deteriorated. However, the additional significance of the

narrator’s inability to produce children with the young man,

therefore, the woman’s position in the Sonnets is that of

reproducer. Robert Matz argues, “Shakespeare takes the place of

two members of the young man’s future family: the son who will

reproduce the young man and the wife who will be responsible for

that reproduction” (480). The position of the poet is that of

lover, however the poet does not take the place of the woman as

Hunter 17

well as the future offspring. Therefore, the sonnet is exploring

the dichotomy between the individual and society. The homosexual

tone of Sonnet three is displayed in the narrator’s knowledge of

the Renaissance social constraints to marriage: “Look in thy

glass, and tell the face thou viewest, Now is the time that face

should form another/” (3.1-2). Further, Sonnet three evaluates

the societal views intruding on the narrator’s expectations of a

male heir. Though he wants his love’s beauty to continue, the

narrator questions the young man’s lack of desire to marry, while

also viewing the young man’s un-interest to marry as a selfish

act; to not share his beauty through a child: “For where is she

so fair, whose un’ear’d womb/ Disdains the tillage of thy

husbandry?” (3.5-6). The social constrains of their relationship

are illustrated through the narrators questioning of marriage we

see the notion of heterosexual and homosexual skewed; Robert Matz

states: “the invention of ‘heterosexuality’ put greater negative

pressure on ‘homosexuality’ since once heterosexual sex outside

of marriage becomes ‘healthy’ and ‘normal’ ‘homosexuality’

becomes increasingly isolated as ‘abnormal’ non-married sex”

(480).

Hunter 18

Similarly, sonnet eighteen “Shall I compare thee to a

summer’s day,” explores the theme of timeless beauty, however the

man’s beauty is seen through the natural imagery:

Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?

Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,

And summer’s lease have too short a date. (18.1-4)

With this, the narrator compares the young man’s beauty to the

beauty in nature. The comparison comes to portray the narrator’s

fear of the man’s beauty fading as the beauty of summer fades.

The fading of summer into fall apparently plays into the visual

fading of beauty seen in sonnet three:

And often is his gold complexion dimm’d;

And every fair from fair sometime declines,

By chance, or nature’s changing course, untrimm’d

(18.5-8)

The theme of the young man’s beauty fading with nature is

depicted in: “And often is his gold complexion dimm’d,” (18.5)

the “golden complexion” is the man’s youthful appearance along

with the golden complexion of fall. Furthermore, the fairness

Hunter 19

that declines is the young man’s beauty declining with time. The

notion of time in sonnet three and eighteen, proves to be the

defining characteristic of the beginning collection of the

Sonnets, however in sonnets eighteen the narrator reconciles the

youth’s beauty withering with time because the sonnets themselves

will be timeless. Matz argues: “In sonnet 18, the ‘eternal lines’

that will preserve the young man past death are those of

Shakespeare’s sonnets” (480). Accordingly, Matz argument of the

preservation is further illustrated in: “So long as men can

breathe, or eyes can see,/ So long lives this, and this gives

life to thee” (18.13-14). The preservation of the young man’s

beauty will stand the test of time, as Shakespeare’s sonnets will

carry on through time. Therefore, sonnet eighteen immortalizes

the narrators desire for the youth addressed and his desire for

the beauty to last the test of time. It is undeniable that the

Sonnets directed towards the young man display a deep passionate

homosexual love and not an exploration of Renaissance male

friendship because of the presence of the dark mistress sonnets

and the narrator’s attitude towards her.

Hunter 20

The sonnets concerning the dark mistress are scandalous

because of their inversion of Renaissance beauty. Shakespeare’s

use of opposition, black and white imagery, natural imagery, and

the animalistic, validates the homosexual relationship of the

young man and the narrator. Continually, the mistress is compared

to the most beautiful natural images, yet the comparison is used

to show her unattractive attributes:

My mistress’ eyes are nothing like the sun;

Coral is far more red than her lips’ red;

If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;

If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.

(130.1-4)

Through the comparison, the appearance of Shakespeare satirizing

beauty and even the archetypal poetry about beauty, is present on

the surface of the sonnet, however once the sonnet is placed

diptych with that of the young man sonnet; the contrast is

further noted as the narrator belittles the desire for a woman.

Throughout sonnet one hundred and thirty “My mistress’ eyes are

nothing like the sun,” the natural imagery is seen in opposition

to that of the beauty of the woman, whereas the young man’s

Hunter 21

beauty is validated through his differentiation to nature: “I

have seen roses damask’d, red and white,/ But no such roses see I

in her cheeks” (130.5-6). Similarly, the lady’s dull colorless

face is juxtaposed with the young man’s “golden complexion”. The

black and white imagery illustrates the narrator’s lack of desire

for the woman. Furthermore, the imagery of the snow, along with

the monochrome perception of the woman, shows how the narrator

diminishes and replaces the colors of nature with dull, lifeless

colors. This lack of color insinuates the narrator’s lack of

passion, desire, and love for the dark mistress. In sonnet one

hundred and thirty, the narrator’s disgust is exemplified to

depict the woman as inhuman, beastly: “My mistress when she

walks, treads on the ground” (130.12). It is as though the

woman’s appearance is so vile; that her walk characterizes an

animal, and from this any sort of desire or lust the narrator

would have for the woman is seen as a type of bestiality.

Consequently, the sonnet ends with: “And yet, by Heaven, I think

my love as rare/ As any she belied with false compare” (130. 13-

14). Many critics view this to display the narrator reconciling

the lack of conventional beauty in the mistress, however lines

Hunter 22

thirteen and fourteen indicate the narrator reconciling his love

for the young man, not the mistress.

The validity of the poet’s desire for the young man, to that

of the dark mistress is further visible in sonnet twenty “A

woman’s face with Nature’s own hand painted”:

A woman’s face with Nature’s own hand painted,

Hast thou, the master-mistress of my passion;

A woman’s gentile heart, but not acquainted

With shifting change, as is false women’s fashion

(20.1-4)

The narrator supplementary substantiates the man’s beauty in a

tangibly social constraint: “The playwright, in conceiving every

feminine role of his imagination, had to think of it as preformed

onstage by a boy” (Pequigney, 37). For Shakespeare’s audience

would be able to see the beauty of a woman and through this,

Shakespeare takes the woman and applies it to the man, in order

for the audience to connect with the beauty of the man. As the

boy actors would play woman characters, the poet unites the

“master-mistress”; Sonnet twenty combines the use of amalgamation

of the “master-mistress”, as well as the union of the

Hunter 23

conventional expectations of women. The narrator places the young

man in womanly terms, however he quickly undermines the woman by

stating: “A woman’s gentile heart, but not acquainted with

shifting change […]” (20.3-4). The man posses the beauty of a

woman, yet the lofty personality of a women he does not posses.

Similarly, the young man’s comparison to women is further

illustrated: “An eye more bright than theirs, less false in

rolling […]”(20.5). The implicit comparison of the naturally

colored face of the youth and the artificial coloring of the

woman implies the love with the youth as natural and the woman as

false in compare. “[The] comparison of 20.5 has both a physical

and a moral basis; in 20.3-4, where womanly virtue of gentleness

abides in his moral heart without woman’s vice of inconsistency

[…]” (Pequigney, 33). Additionally, the comparison of the youth

and the woman illustrated in lines one through six conveys the

woman as “false” in compare to the youth. The woman, unlike the

youth is “false” and her heart is “acquainted/ with shifting

change”, dissimilar the woman’s eyes are not as bright as the

youth and further are not “false” as the woman’s are: “Less false

in rolling/”.

Hunter 24

Lines eleven through fourteen become problematic, for the

reason that many critics including Robert Matz questions whether

these lines prove a purely hetero-social relationship,

alternative to the sexual desire for the young man: “A picture

perfect friendship may also be accomplished by including sonnet

20 near the beginning of the edition. Rather than pointing to a

sexual relationship between Shakespeare and the male subject of

the sonnets, the poem can also suggest a distinction between the

love of male friends and the physical, interested and ‘shifting’

or momentary ‘love’s use’ between men and women” (487). The

sonnet is an unlikely choice for critics to argue the non-sexual

friendship between the poet and the youth because of the

“homoerotic ‘doting’; and the penis of the beloved dwelled upon

at length” (Pequigney, 40).

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. (20.11-14)

Hunter 25

The presence of Nature as a feminine force asserts her relation

to the poet, and the “prick’d thee out for women’s pleasure,”

(20.13) further placing the youth with nature. Through the

feminine Nature, the union between the youth and the feminine is

brought to fruition. Additionally, “prick’d thee out for women’s

pleasure” alludes to the phallic image of the youth’s pleasuring

woman. As Pequigney has argued the presence of eroticism is

undeniable with the phallic imagery and the comparison of the

youth’s possession of womanly virtue and the poets desire for the

youth’s penis. Therefore, the end of the discourse is to beseech

the poet’s undivided love and sexual desire from the young man’s.

The theme of fecundity with both the woman and the young man is

alluded to in the poet’s use of “their treasure” and suggests the

pleasure brought on by sexual unity.

Although sonnet twenty explores erotically the narrator’s

passions for the youth, the presence of sexual relations between

the two men are not immediately shown, however in sonnet fifty-

two “So am I as the rich, whose blessed key” the raw sexual

desire of the poet is illustrated through the phallic imagery:

So am I as the rich, whose blessed key

Hunter 26

Can bring him to his sweet up-locked treasure,

The which he will not every hour survey,

For blunting the fine point of seldom pleasure.

Therefore are feasts so solemn and so rare,

Since seldom coming in the long year, set

Like stones of worth they thinly placed are,

Or captain jewels in the carcanet.

So is the time that keeps you as my chest,

Or as the wardrobe which the robe doth hide,

To make some special instant special blest,

By new unfolding his imprisoned pride. (52.1-12)

The simile of 52.1-4 suggests the sexual import through the

language of the “key” and the “treasure”. It is evident that the

key is a phallic image, in which the “key” will un-lock the

“treasure” of the poet. The metaphorical meaning of the

“treasure” can be seen as the poet’s semen, where as the “jewels”

imply the poets sexual pleasure. With the metaphor of the “key”

and the “treasure” the poet’s sexual desire for the youth is

erotically expressed. Furthermore, Shakespeare’s bawdy language

to the Elizabethan audience would be directed towards a woman,

Hunter 27

however he effectively inverts the language and directs it

towards the young man. For instance “treasure” alludes to a

“woman’s secret parts” and “lock” can also be taken as a woman’s

chastity. The poet’s use of the words such as “key” is the young

man’s phallus, where he must use the tool to unlock the poet’s

sexual pleasure, however the tone of the sonnet suggests that the

unlocking is done without force, but with mutual passion.

Similarly, in the second quatrain the reinforcement of the first

is continued with the poet’s ornate physical desire for the man.

The use of “seldom and so rare” proposes the rarity of their

desire, while: “’Like stones of worth’ or like ‘captain jewels’

in a neck ornament, the ‘carcanet’. The word ‘worth’ signifying

the material precociousness of gems 52.7, should guide us to the

sense it bears when recurring in the form of ‘worthiness’ in

52.13, where it signifies the youth’s physical rather than the

moral excellence” (Pequigney, 44). The signified physical aspect

of the youth in sonnet fifty-two stands out for its sexually

explicit imagery. However, through this sonnet the solidification

of the homoerotic is un-falsified. In quatrain three the

narrator’s establishment of the “you” establishes a two part

Hunter 28

direction, one indicating the reader or audience and the second

indicating the young man: “Blessed are you, whose worthiness

gives scope/ Being had, to triumph, being lack’d to hope” (52.13-

14). The “blessed are you” and “being had, to triumph” is

interpreted as the moment of sexual interaction, and the “had”

expressing the transfer of the interaction. The sexual

interaction of the poet and the youth follows the passion seen in

sonnet twenty. In sonnet twenty and fifty-two, the narrator’s

desire for the youth is be acted upon instead of suppressed.

With sonnet fifty-two the accusations of the relationship

between the narrator and the young man as a hetero-social

friendship is dismissed with the sexual union of the men.

Similarly, the sexual act is further explored in sonnet fifty-six

“Sweet love, renew they force: be it not said”:

Sweet love, renew thy force: be it not said,

Thy edge should blunter be than appetite,

Which but to-day by, feeding is ally’d,

To-morrow sharpen’d in his former might:

So, love, be thou; although to-day thou fill

Hunter 29

Thy hungry eyes, even till they wink with

fullness,

To-morrow see again, and do not kill

The spirit of love with a perpetual dullness.

(56.1-8)

The image of the “edge” as the poet’s phallus blunting that of

the youth fulfills his sexual appetite. The “renew” of the

“force” alludes to the bodily response of the beseeched, and thus

the renewing fulfils the sexual desire of the lover. The

appetites between the two are the appetites of sexual desire,

that cannot be related to a mere friendship between men; for the

obvious reason that friends do no “hunger” for one another’s

bodies. The diffusion of the comparison is most recognizable is

the carnal desire evident in “sharpen’d” and “blunted”. The

visual of “feeding” and “hungry eyes” plays throughout the sonnet

and develops as the narrator’s carnal lust for the beloved. From

sonnet fifty-two, the presence of the sexual act has brought upon

it the continuous want for it. Furthermore, in the lines that

follows the poet leave the second person narrative and begins

exploring the fruitfulness of his love with the youth:

Hunter 30

Let this sad interim like the ocean be

Which parts of the shore, where two contracted new

Come daily to the banks, that when they see,

Return of love, more blest may be the view;

As call it winter, which being full of care,

Makes summer’s welcome thrice more wish’d, more

rare.(56.9-14)

Unlike many of the other sonnets that deal with homoerotic

desire, sonnet fifty-six alludes to the nature=”ocean” (OED)

unionizing the men when they are separate. Presumably, the view

of the ocean is what reminds them of one another. The ocean is

also depicted as the poet’s lack of desire that returns as the

tide of the ocean hits the shore: “Let this sad interim like the

ocean be/ Which parts of the shore, where two contracted new/”

(56.9-10). Additionally, the appearance of time is enlisted with:

“two contracted new,” meaning “lately engaged” (OED). This

suggests that the relationship between the poet and the youth is

recently developed, yet with the presence of summer the poet’s

welcoming of the love from the beseeched is viewed by him to be

“more rare” than previously seen. Throughout sonnet fifty-six the

Hunter 31

progression of the poet’s carnal sexual desire for the youth is

juxtaposed with the poet’s longing for the passion to return as

the tide of the ocean returns, and with the natural imagery of

the seasons, the bareness of winter bores itself to the

fruitfulness of summer.

In William Shakespeare collection of Sonnets, desire and

passion are explored to unveil the homosexual love of the poet

and youth. Through the examined sonnets the theme of

homoeroticism is anchored with Queer theory and the evolution of

acceptance of the love between two men. Through the leading

Shakespearian scholars their arguments are reviewed, accepted, or

refuted. In the sonnets explored the validation of the erotic

relationship of the narrator and the youth is seen through the

contrast of the dark lady, as well as the poet’s comparison of

the youth to that of women. The poet positions the youth within

the virtues of women, however he undercuts the figure of the

woman to illustrate his love’s beauty. Consistently, the notion

of beauty and time are addressed as either positive or negative.

With relation to the youth, the narrator’s desire for the youth

to produce children and promote his beauty; the notion of beauty

Hunter 32

is further seen as negative with relation to the dark mistress.

The dark mistress’s lack of beauty juxtaposed with the inherit

beauty of the youth; the theme of time is explored. Throughout

the Sonnets the theme of time is paired with the youth’s beauty,

however it is also seen as waving with that of poet’s desire for

the youth. Furthermore, the passion and desire of the narrator

for the young man is climaxed with their sexual union displayed

in sonnet fifty-two. The controversy presented in Shakespeare’s

Sonnets, particularly the argument regarding the occurrence of a

homosexual relationship or a hetero-social display of Renaissance

friendship between the poet and the young man. The emergence of

Queer theory has validated the Sonnets, while also creating a

context for contemporary audiences. With the increased

understanding of homosexuality, the Stonewall revolution lent

itself to the sexual expression and re-evaluation of past texts

such as the Sonnets. The pioneering of Queer theory has allowed for

the re-emergence of the display of homosexuality in Shakespeare’s

Sonnets.

Hunter 33

Works Cited

Bray, Alan. Homosexuality in Renaissance England. New York: Columbia UP,

1995. Print.

Dynes, Wayne R., and Stephen Donaldson. Homosexual Themes in Literary

Studies. Vol. VIII. New York: Garland, 1992. Print.

Frandenburg, Aranye. "The Sonnets." Shakesqueer: A Queer Companion to

the Complete Works of Shakespeare. By Madhavi Menon. Durham: Duke

UP, 2011. 319-42. Print.

Keevak, Michael. "Chapter I." Sexual Shakespeare: Forgery, Authorship,

Portraiture. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 2001. 23-40. Print.

Matz, Robert. "The Scandals of Shakespeare's Sonnets." Elh 77.2

(2010): 477-508. Print.

Partridge, Eric. "Homosexual." Shakespeare's Bawdy. London:

Routledge, 1968. 13-18. Print.

Hunter 34

Pearsall, Judy. "Oxford Dictionaries Online." Oxford Dictionaries

Online. Oxford University Press, 2012. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.

Pequigney, Joseph. "I-IV." Such Is My Love: A Study of Shakespeare's Sonnets.

Chicago: University of Chicago, 1985. 1-80. Print.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. "Chapter III." Epistemology of the Closet.

Berkeley: University of California, 1990. 103-30. Print.

Shakespeare, William. "The Sonnets." The Illustrated Stratford Shakespeare.

London: Chancellor, 1982. 1008-1023. Print.

Summers, Claude J. "Chapter IV." Gay Fictions, Wilde to Stonewall: Studies in

a Male Homosexual Literary Tradition. New York: Continuum, 1990. 78-

111. Print.