Erotic Style: From Plato’s Phaedrus to the Modern Novel

  • Robert S. Sturges

Abstract

The relationship of male-male desire to language has been an implicit theme of many, if not most, of the dialogues discussed so far, especially Plato’s: in both the Lysis and the Symposium, dialogical discourse and oratory stand in for erotic intercourse between males, whether as seductive go-betweens leading to the physical expression of love, or as themselves love’s truest expression, transcending the physical. The Phaedrus, a dialogue probably roughly contemporary with the Symposium and often associated with it, makes this concern explicit: while it includes many of the Platonic doctrines on male-male desire familiar from the Lysis and the Symposium, it also, in a juxtaposition that can seem startling, discusses language, rhetoric, and writing. Discourses on love occupy the first half of the dialogue, while the second half, in an apparently abrupt change of subject, takes up these questions of language.

Keywords

Foam Mane Straw Ghost Defend 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 3.
    On the relationship between the two dialogues, see John D. Moore, “The Relation Between Plato’s Symposium and Phaedrus” in Patterns in Plato’s Thought: Papers Arising out of the 1971 West Coast Greek Philosophy Conference, ed. J. M. E. Moravçsik (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1973), pp. 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. On Phaedrus himself, see Martha C. Nussbaum, “‘This story isn’t true’: madness, reason, and recantation in the Phaedrus” in her The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1986), pp. 200–233, at p. 212.Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    On the prologue’s scene-setting for the following three speeches, see Anne Lebeck, “The Central Myth of Plato’s PhaedrusGreek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 13 (1972): 267–290, at pp. 280–283.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    This passage has given rise to much comment. Many critics believe, given Plato’s harsh treatment of poetry elsewhere, that his comments on poetic inspiration must be ironic: see C. J. Rowe, Plato’s Phaedrus (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1986), p. 151Google Scholar
  5. Charles L. Griswold, Jr., Self-Knowledge in Plato’s Phaedrus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), p. 53Google Scholar
  6. Andrea Wilson Nightingale, Genres in Dialogue: Plato and the Construct of Philosophy (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 135–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Page DuBois, Sappho Is Burning (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), p. 85.Google Scholar
  8. But Helene Foley, “‘The Mother of the Argument’: Eros and the Body in Sappho and Plato’s Phaedrus,” in Parchments of Gender: Deciphering the Body in Antiquity, ed. Maria Wyke (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), points out that the similar poetic inspiration for Socrates’ second speech is taken seriously, pp. 45–49.Google Scholar
  9. 8.
    It is uncertain whether this speech is to be attributed to the real Lysias or should be considered simply as Plato’s imitation of Lysias’ style. See Siegmar Doepp, “Der Verfasser des Erotikos in Platons Phaedrus,” Glotta 61 (1983): 15–29.Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Phaedrus, trans. Hackforth, p. 31; see also Josef Pieper, Love and Inspiration: A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus, trans. Richard and Clara Winston (London: Faber and Faber, 1964), pp. 19–20, and, more recently, The Symposium and the Phaedrus: Plato’s Erotic Dialogues, ed. and trans. William S. Cobb (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), p. 144.Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    G. R. F Ferrari, Listening to the Cicadas: A Study of Plato’s Phaedrus (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 93, 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 13.
    See Bruce Thornton, Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  13. 19.
    Plato, Apology, trans. G. M. A. Grube, in Plato, Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997), pp. 18–36, at p. 29, 31d. For the view that the second speech is entirely repudiated in the third, see Malcolm Brown and James Coulter, “The Middle Speech of Plato’s Phaedrus,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 9 (1971): 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 22.
    Ibid., p. 63. Cf. Dougal Blyth, “The Ever-Moving Soul in Plato’s Phaedrus,” American Journal of Philology 118 (1997): 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 26.
    Nussbaum, “This story,” understands the Phaedrus as a whole as a disavowal of many of the views expressed in his other middle-period dialogues, pp. 202–203. See also Albert Cook, “Dialectic, Irony, and Myth in Plato’s Phaedrus,” American Journal of Philology 106 (1985): 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 27.
    On this passage, see also Ferrari, Listening, pp. 153–159; Gregory Vlastos, “The Individual as an Object of Love in Plato,” in his Platonic Studies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973, repr. 1981), pp. 3–42, at pp. 38–42; Nussbaum, “This story,” pp. 217–222; Foley, “Mother,” pp. 46–47.Google Scholar
  17. 30.
    For another view of this passage, see G. R. F. Ferrari, “The Struggle in the Soul: Phaedrus 253c7–255a1,” Ancient Philosophy 5 (1985): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 35.
    Ibid., p. 161; and see Foley, “Mother,” pp. 47–48, which also cites Nightingale, Genres in Dialogue; Ferrari, Cicadas, p. 118; Nussbaum, “This story”; and on the relationship of erotic to philosophical desire, cf. Anne Lebeck, “The Central Myth of Plato’s Phaedrus,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 13 (1972): 267–290Google Scholar
  19. Robert Switzer, “The Topology of Madness: Philosophic Seduction in Plato’s PhaedrusAlif 14 (1994): 6–36Google Scholar
  20. Marian Demos, “Stesichorus’ Palinode in the Phaedrus,” Classical World 90.4 (April, 1997): 235–249. Page du Bois, “Phallocentrism and its Subversion in Plato’s Phaedrus,” Arethusa 18 (1985): 91–103 makes a similar argument for the relationship of philosophy and eros in the Phaedrus, and extends it to suggest that this dialogue also liberates “the reader to a paradoxical sense of the fluidity of sexual boundaries,” p. 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 38.
    See Claud A. Thompson, “Rhetorical Madness: An Ideal in the Phaedrus,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 55 (1969): 358–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 40.
    Jacques Derrida, “Plato’s Pharmacy,” in his Dissemination, trans. Barbara Johnson (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp. 61–171 famously deconstructs this Platonic problematic of writing.Google Scholar
  23. 42.
    Kenneth M. Sayre, Plato’s Literary Garden: How to Read a Platonic Dialogue (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1995), p. xiv, suggests that this point is made at 276d, but it seems clearer at 276e.Google Scholar
  24. 45.
    As Cobb properly translates it (Symposium and Phaedrus), p. 136. The degree of irony in Socrates’ praise of Isocrates is matter of debate; for a review of the issues, see G. J. de Vries, “Isocrates in the Phaedrus: A Reply,” Mnemosyne 24 (1971): 387–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 46.
    Hans Wagner, “Über eine spezielle Art platonistische Dialogkomposition (Sophistes und Phaedrus)” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 66 (1984): 1–10 argues that the rhetorical theme serves as a clarification of the erotic one. For an argument basing the dialogues unity on its verisimilitude rather than on its philosophy, see Malcolm Heath, “The Unity of Plato’s PhaedrusOxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 7 (1989): 151–173; see also the subsequent exchange between Heath and Christopher Rowe in the same issue, pp. 175–191.Google Scholar
  26. 49.
    For expressions of male–male desire in this period’s literature, see, for example, the texts usefully collected in Chris White, ed., Nineteenth-Century Writings on Homosexuality: A Sourcebook (New York: Routledge, 1999)Google Scholar
  27. Louis Crompton, Byron and Greek Love: Homophobia in 19th-Century England (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1985)Google Scholar
  28. Andrew Elfenbein, Romantic Genius: The Prehistory of a Homosexual Role (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999)Google Scholar
  29. and the essays collected in Alice A. Kuzniar, ed. Outing Goethe and His Age (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996). Several essays in the latter volume address the connection drawn between Plato and male–male desire in late-eighteenth and early nineteenth-century German literature: see Kuzniar’s Introduction, pp. 1–32, especially pp. 7–8; Martha B. Helfer, “ ‘Confessions of an Improper Man’: Friedrich Schlegel’s Lucinde” pp. 174–193; Catriona MacLeod, “The ‘Third Sex’ in an Age of Difference: Androgyny and Homosexuality in Winckelmann, Friedrich Schlegel, and Kleist,” pp. 194–214.Google Scholar
  30. On Winckelmann, see also Dennis M. Sweet, “The Personal, the Political, and the Aesthetic: Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s German Enlightenment Life,” in The Pursuit of Sodomy: Male Homosexuality in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe, ed. Kent Gerard and Gert Hekma (New York: Harrington Park Press, 1989), pp. 147–162. None of the texts discussed take the dialogue form.Google Scholar
  31. 50.
    Michael S. Macovski, Dialogue and Literature: Apostrophe, Auditors, and the Collapse of Romantic Discourse (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), finds that Romantic poetry appropriates “dialogism” in Bakhtin’s sense rather than the dialogue form itself.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 59.
    On Ulrichs, see Hubert C. Kennedy, Ulrichs: The Life and Work of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Pioneer of the Modern Gay Movement (Boston: Alyson, 1988)Google Scholar
  33. on Krafft-Ebing, Harry Oosterhuis, Step-Children of Nature: Krafft-Ebing, Psychiatry, and the Making of Sexual Identity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000);Google Scholar
  34. on Hirschfeld, Charlotte Wolff, Magnus Hirschfeld: A Portrait of a Pioneer in Sexology (London: Quartet, 1986).Google Scholar
  35. White, ed., Nineteenth-Century Writings, conveniently collects relevant texts from English sexologists Havelock Ellis, John Addington Symonds, Xavier Mayne, and so on, pp. 66–115, and see Jeffrey Weeks, Coming Out: Homosexual Politics in Britain fom the Nineteenth Century to the Present (London: Quartet, 1977).Google Scholar
  36. 60.
    White provides a selection of the most influential defenses, Nineteenth-Century Writings, pp. 116–235. See especially John Addington Symonds, A Problem in Greek Ethics (London: 1883). On the construction and regulation of male–male desire in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century England, see also Jeffrey Weeks, “Inverts, Perverts, and Mary-Annes: Male Prostitution and the Regulation of Homosexuality in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” in Hidden From History, pp. 195–211;Google Scholar
  37. Christopher Craft, Another Kind of Love: Male Homosexual Desire in English Discourse, 1850–1920 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994)Google Scholar
  38. Jonathan Ned Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality (New York: Dutton, 1995)Google Scholar
  39. Francis Mark Mondimore, A Natural History of Homosexuality (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), pp. 21–95. The syntheses in Greenberg, Construction of Homosexuality, pp. 347–433, and Fone, Homophobia, pp. 271–315 and 355–394, are also helpful.Google Scholar
  40. 61.
    Linda Dowling, Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994), chs. 2 and 3, pp. 32–103.Google Scholar
  41. 62.
    Ibid., p. 80 (emphasis in text), quoting Plato, Symposium 209a, in The Collected Dialogues including the Letters, ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961), p. 560.Google Scholar
  42. 66.
    H. Montgomery Hyde, The Trials of Oscar Wilde, 2nd ed. (1962), repr. New York: Dover, 1973, p. 201.Google Scholar
  43. 68.
    In Richard Ellmann, ed. The Artist as Critic: Critical Writings of Oscar Wilde (1969; rpt. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), pp. 152–220. This narrative as a whole is concerned with Shakespeare’s sonnets; the passage on Michelangelo, with its direct reference to the idealized male–male desire of Plato’s Symposium, appears on pp. 184–185.Google Scholar
  44. 69.
    Max Beerbohm, letter in Anglo-American Times, March 25, 1893, in his Letters to Reggie Turner, ed. Rupert Hart-Davies (1964),Google Scholar
  45. quoted in Gary Schmidgall, The Stranger Wilde: Interpreting Oscar (New York: Dutton, 1994), p. 251.Google Scholar
  46. 70.
    Schmidgall, The Stranger, p. 251, citing Frank Harris, Contemporary Portraits (1915). Schmidgall develops the comparison with Socrates throughout his book, pp. 29, 177, 251, 313.Google Scholar
  47. 71.
    Richard Ellmann, Oscar Wilde (New York: Knopf, 1988), p. 438.Google Scholar
  48. 72.
    I quote the text of this letter from Rupert Hart-Davies, ed., The Letters of Oscar Wilde (New York: Harcourt, 1962), p. 326. It is quoted in the context of the trial, in slightly different form, in Hyde, Trials, p. 101.Google Scholar
  49. 76.
    See Katz, Invention; David M. Halperin, “One Hundred Years of Homosexuality,” in his One Hundred Years of Homosexuality and Other Essays on Greek Love (New York: Routledge; 1990), pp. 15–40.Google Scholar
  50. 77.
    Alan Sinfield, The Wilde Century: Effeminacy, Oscar Wilde and the Queer Moment (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), p. 122.Google Scholar
  51. On Wilde and effeminacy, see also Joseph Bristow, Effeminate England: Homoerotic Writing after 1885 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 16–54.Google Scholar
  52. 81.
    Robert Sulcer, “Ten Percent: Poetry and Pathology,” in Victorian Sexual Dissidence, ed. Richard Dellamora (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), pp. 235–252, at p. 252, n. 14. Sulcer explicitly connects this association with Wilde.Google Scholar
  53. 85.
    On the indeterminacy of Wilde’s language with regard to sexuality, see also William A. Cohen, “Indeterminate Wilde,” in his Sex Scandal: The Private Parts of Victorian Fiction (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996), pp. 191–236.Google Scholar
  54. 89.
    Murray translates Kdtóc as “beautiful,” Major Works, p. 601 n. “Noble” is also a possible translation of καλòς and the one preferred in The Works of Oscar Wilde, ed. G. F. Maine (London: Collins, 1948), pp. 953, n. 1 and 954, n. 1. But on the sort of pottery inscription that presumably inspired this passage, see K. J. Dover, Greek Homosexuality, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), pp. 114–122. Dover stipulates that καλòς when, as here, applied to persons, always means “beautiful,” and means “noble” only when applied to ideas or institutions, pp. 15–16. On friendship as an aspect of the late Victorian homoerotic code, see the discussion of Edward Carpenter, below, as well as the passage from Pater’s Renaissance cited above.Google Scholar
  55. 91.
    Matthew Arnold, “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time,” in his Essays in Criticism (London: Macmillan, 1865), pp. 1–41, at p. 22.Google Scholar
  56. 91.
    Matthew Arnold, “The Function of Criticism at the Present Time,” in his Essays in Criticism (London: Macmillan, 1865), pp. 1–41, at p. 22.Google Scholar
  57. 103.
    Jeff Nunokawa, Tame Passions of Wilde: The Styles of Manageable Desire (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 117, citing “The Critic as Artist,” in Ellmann, ed., The Artist as Critic, pp. 273–274.Google Scholar
  58. 107.
    See also Eva Thienpont, “‘To Play Gracefully With Ideas’: Oscar Wilde’s Personal Platonism in Poetics,” The Wildean 20 (2000): 37–48.Google Scholar
  59. 108.
    Jonathan Dollimore, Sexual Dissidence: Augustine to Wilde, Freud to Foucault (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), p. 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 109.
    On Wilde as one of the inventors of modernity, as well as the sign of an abjected homosexuality, see Philip Hoare, Oscar Wilde’s Last Stand: Decadence, Conspiracy, and the Most Outrageous Trial of the Century (New York: Arcade, 1997).Google Scholar
  61. 110.
    For another discussion of the dialogue genre in these terms by Wilde, see his review entitled “A Chinese Sage [Confucius]” (1890), in Ellmann, ed., The Artist as Critic, pp. 221–228, at p. 227. Edward A. Watson, “Wilde’s Iconoclastic Classicism: ‘The Critic as Artist,’” English Literature in Transition (1880–1920) 27 (1984): 225–235 links Wilde’s dialogism to Plato’s.Google Scholar
  62. 112.
    Edward Carpenter, ed., Ioläus: An Anthology of Friendship (London: Sonnenschein, 1902; 2nd ed. 1906; 3rd ed. 1915; repr. 1917; repr. New York: Pagan Press, 1982). Selections from Plato can be found on pp. 43–53, selections from Whitman on pp. 188–192.Google Scholar
  63. Both Symonds and Carpenter also published studies of Whitman: John Addington Symonds, Walt Whitman: A Study (London: John C. Nimmo, 1893);Google Scholar
  64. Edward Carpenter, Days With Walt Whitman (London: George Allen, 1906). A useful selection of Carpenter’s writings is Edward Carpenter, Selected Writings, Vol. 1: Sex (London: GMP 1984).Google Scholar
  65. For American constructions of homosexuality at the turn of the century, see George Chauncey, Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890–1940 (New York: Basic Books, 1994).Google Scholar
  66. 113.
    See Richard Howard, “Translator’s note” to André Gide, Corydon, trans. Richard Howard (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, p. xv), and Alan Sheridan, André Gide: A Life in the Present (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 248–249, 373.Google Scholar
  67. 115.
    On contemporary French appropriations of Whitman, see Martin Kanes, “Whitman, Gide, and Bazalgette: An International Encounter,” Comparative Literature 14 (1962): 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 118.
    See Daniel Moutote, “Corydon en 1918,” Bulletin des amis d’André Gide 16 (78–79) (April–July, 1988): 9–24. Gide aligned himself with Freud rather than with any of the earlier sexologists: see, for example, Sheridan, André Gide, p. 353. On Freud and the shifting models of homosexuality at the turn of the century, see Henry Abelove, “Freud, Male Homosexuality, and the Americans,” in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, ed. Henry Abelove, Michèle Aina Barale, and David M. Halperin (New York: Routledge, 1993), pp. 381–393;Google Scholar
  69. Sandor L. Gilman, “Sigmund Freud and the Sexologists: A Second Reading,” in Reading Freud’s Reading, ed. Sander L. Gilman et al. (New York: New York University Press, 1994), pp. 47–76.Google Scholar
  70. On the construction and regulation of homosexuality in twentieth-century France, see Homosexuality in Modern France, ed. Jeffrey Merrick and Bryant T. Ragan, Jr. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  71. 119.
    Michael Lucey, Gide’s Bent: Sexuality, Politics, Writing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), also places Corydon in the context of the dialogue genre (see p. 70), and specifically in the context of Wilde’s two dialogues (p. 81, n. 23); he also finds a sexual tension between the two interlocutors comparable to that which I find between the speakers in “The Critic as Artist” (pp. 90–91).Google Scholar
  72. 121.
    Especially in Jonathan Fryer, André and Oscar: The Literary Friendship of André Gide and Oscar Wilde (New York: St. Martin’s, 1997);Google Scholar
  73. but see also Alan Sheridan, André Gide: A Life in the Present (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), especially pp. 75–77 and 116–120;Google Scholar
  74. and Colm Tóibín, “Oscar Wilde: Love in a Dark Time,” in his Love in a Dark Time and Other Explorations of Gay Lives and Literature (New York: Scribner, 2001), pp. 37–85. For analyses of the two writers’ views on sexuality, see also Dollimore, pp. 3–18, and Lucey, Gide’s Bent, especially pp. 8–13.Google Scholar
  75. 123.
    On the ironies of Gide’s use of the dialogue form in this way, see Lucey, Gide’s Bent, p. 77; Christine Ligier, “Discours de l’autre et discours du moi: l’ironie gidienne dans Si le grain ne meurt et Corydon,” Revue des lettres modernes 1362–1370 (1998): 257–265. Corydon is discussed at pp. 262–265. On the very real concerns that caused Gide’s hesitation to publish Corydon, see Sheridan, André Gide, pp. 237, 319, 376.Google Scholar
  76. 125.
    André Gide, Correspondance avec sa mère 1880–1896 (Paris: Gallimard, 1988), pp. 587–588, quoted in Sheridan, André Gide, p. 116.Google Scholar
  77. 126.
    Dollimore, Dissidence, p. 18. Lucille Cairns, “Gide’s Corydon: The Politics of Sexuality and Sexual Politics,” Modern Language Review 91 (1996): 582–596 condemns Gide’s apparent conservatism with regard to effeminacy and to women.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 128.
    See Julia Kristeva, “From One Identity to an Other,” in her Desire in Language: A Semiotic Approach to Literature and Art, ed. Leon S. Roudiez, trans. Thomas Gora, Alice Jardine, and Leon S. Roudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, 1980), pp. 124–147, at p. 135.Google Scholar
  79. 131.
    On this paradox, see Patrick Pollard, “L’Idéal de Corydon,” La Revue des lettres modernes 1033–1038 (série André Gide 9) (1991): 61–82, which argues that the tension between the natural ideal of pleasure and the Platonic ideal of self-restraint remains unresolved in Corydon. Google Scholar
  80. 132.
    See, for example, M. M. Bakhtin, “Epic and Novel: Toward a Methodology for the Study of the Novel,” in his The Dialogic Imagination, ed. Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981), pp. 3–40.Google Scholar
  81. 133.
    And Samuel R. Delany’s brilliant erotic novel of 1973, Equinox, in its turn echoes Sade’s dialogue when the characters interrupt elaborate orgy scenes with philosophical speeches, just as Dolmancé does in La Philosophie dans le boudoir. See Samuel R. Delany, Equinox (1973; repr. New York, Rhinoceros, 1994), pp. 118–122 and 145–148.Google Scholar
  82. 134.
    “Well, Socrates did what you’ve just done. …Jacques, you’re a sort of philosopher, admit it.” Denis Diderot, Jacques the Fatalist and His Master, trans. Michael Henry (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986), p. 80; cf. Jacques le fataliste et son maître in Denis Diderot, Oeuvres romanesques, ed. Henri Bénac (Paris: Garnier, 1962), pp. 493–780, at p. 563.Google Scholar
  83. 138.
    See George Bridges, “The Problem of Pederastic Love in Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice and Plato’s Phaedrus,” Selecta: Journal of the Pacific Northwest Council on Foreign Languages 7 (1986): 39–46.Google Scholar
  84. 139.
    Thomas Mann, Death in Venice, trans. Stanley Applebaum (New York: Dover, 1995). Citations of this translation by page number will appear in the text. I prefer this recent translation as more complete and accurate than the more familiar version by H. T Lowe-Porter. German citations follow Thomas Mann, Der Tod in Venedig, in his Der Tod in Venedig und andere Erzählungen (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1954), pp. 7–66, by page number.Google Scholar
  85. 140.
    Robert Aldrich, The Seduction of the Mediterranean: Writing, Art and Homosexual Fantasy (New York: Routledge, 1993); Death in Venice—Mann’s novella, Visconti’s film, and Britten’s opera—is discussed on pp. 1–12, and provides a keynote for the entire study. On Mann’s “homosexuality,”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. see Robert Tobin, “The Life and Work of Thomas Mann: A Gay Perspective,” in Thomas Mann, Death in Venice, ed. Naomi Ritter (New York: Bedford, 1998), pp. 225–244. On the experience that inspired the novella,Google Scholar
  87. see Katia Mann, Meine ungeschriebenen Memoiren, ed. Elisabeth Plessen and Michael Mann (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1974); she identifies the youth who inspired Mann as the young Polish aristocrat Wladislaw Moes, pp. 70–72.Google Scholar
  88. Gilbert Adair, The Real Tadzio: Thomas Mann’s “Death in Venice” and the Boy who Inspired It (New York: Carroll and Graf, 2003) reviews the evidence.Google Scholar
  89. See also Doris Alexander, Creating Literature Out of Life: The Making of Four Masterpieces (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996), pp. 7–21. On Mann’s view of his own homosexuality, see Colm Tóibín, “Thomas Mann: Exit Pursued by Biographers,” in his Love in a Dark Time, pp. 111–130.Google Scholar
  90. 141.
    On the medical aspects of the novella, see Laura Otis, “The Tigers of Wrath: Mann’s Death in Venice as Myth and Medicine,” in Teaching Literature and Medicine, ed. Anne Hunsaker Hawkins and Marilyn Chandler McEntyre (New York: MLA, 2000), pp. 243–251.Google Scholar
  91. 142.
    Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “Some Binarisms (II): Wilde, Nietzsche, and the Sentimental Relations of the Male Body,” in her Epistemology of the Closet (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), pp. 131–181, links Nietzsche to Wilde, decadence, and male–male desire.Google Scholar
  92. 145.
    On the relationship of form to erotic abjection, see Edward S. Brinkley, “Fear of Form: Thomas Mann’s Der Tod in VenedigMonatshefte 91.1 (1999): 2–27.Google Scholar
  93. 148.
    E. M. Forster, Maurice (New York: Norton, 1971). Page numbers of this edition will be cited in the text.Google Scholar
  94. 149.
    On Forster’s rejection of Plato, see Debrah Raschke, “Breaking the Engagement with Philosophy: Re-Envisioning Hetero/Homo Relations in Maurice” in Queer Forster, ed. Robert K. Martin and George Piggford (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997), pp. 151–165.Google Scholar
  95. 150.
    See Robert K. Martin, “Edward Carpenter and the Double Structure of MauriceJournal of Homosexuality 8 (1983): 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. John Fletcher, “Forster’s Self-Erasure: Maurice and the Scene of Masculine Love,” in Sexual Sameness: Textual Differences in Lesbian and Gay Writing, ed. Joseph Bristow (New York: Routledge: 1992), pp. 64–90 situates Maurice in its turn-of-the-century intellectual context, including both Carpenter and Symonds.Google Scholar
  97. 151.
    Tariq Rahman, “E. M. Forster and the Break Away from the Ephebophobic Literary Tradition,” Etudes Anglaises 40 (1987): 267–278 argues that same-age and different-age desire are equally natural in Forster’s scheme.Google Scholar
  98. 152.
    On the novel’s homosexual-pastoral aspect, see Anne Hartree, “A Passion that Few English Minds Have Admitted’: Homosexuality and Englishness in E. M. Forster’s MauriceParagraph 19 (1996): 127–138;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Ira Bruce Nadel, “Moments in the Greenwood: Maurice in Context,” in E. M. Forster: Centenary Revaluations, ed. Judith Scherer and Robert K. Martin (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982), pp. 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 153.
    See Byrne R. S. Fone, A Road to Stonewall: Male Homosexuality and Homophobia in English and American Literature, 1750–1969 (New York: Twayne, 1995), p. 173;Google Scholar
  101. Matthew Curr, “Recuperating E. M. Forster’s MauriceModern Language Quarterly 62 (2001): 53–69;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Jon Harned, “Becoming Gay in E. M. Forster’s MauricePapers on Language and Literature 29 (1993): 49–66.Google Scholar
  103. 154.
    See Bernard F. Dick, The Hellenism of Mary Renault (Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1972), pp. 30–37, on Renault’s symbolic use of the Phaedrus in The Charioteer; my reading differs from Dick’s substantially.Google Scholar
  104. And cf. David Sweetman, Mary Renault: A Biography (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1993), pp. 143–144.Google Scholar
  105. 155.
    Mary Renault, The Charioteer (1953; repr. New York: Pantheon, 1959). Quotations from this edition, cited by page number, will appear in the text.Google Scholar
  106. 159.
    Concerning the novel’s multiple perspectives on homosexuality, see Caroline Zilboorg, The Masks of Mary Renault (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2001), pp. 112–115.Google Scholar
  107. 162.
    Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values. Twenty-fifth Anniversary Edition (New York: HarperCollins/Perennial, 1999). Quotations from this edition, which makes some crucial typographical changes from the 1974 edition, will be cited by page number in the text.Google Scholar
  108. 163.
    Beverly Gross, “‘A Mind Divided Against Itself’: Madness in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,” Journal of Narrative Technique 14 (1984): 201–213 argues that the process of self-unification involves the “integration” of the Phaedrus personality, p. 213.Google Scholar
  109. 164.
    Geoffrey Galt Harpham, “Rhetoric and the Madness of Philosophy in Plato and Pirsig,” Contemporary Literature 29 (1988): 64–81 suggests that what the original Phaedrus himself could not abide in Socrates was “his tolerance of dialogism,” p. 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert S. Sturges 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert S. Sturges

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations