Utopian Lesbian Erotics

  • Denise A. Walen
Part of the Early Modern Cultural Studies book series (EMCSS)

Abstract

The preceding chapters have examined textual representations of female homoeroticism that imply a resignation toward imaginative constructs of love and desire. The same-sex erotic entanglements constructed in these early modern plays are associative, not concrete, embodiments of female-female desire. That is, playwrights constructed female homoeroticism in a space where no real, or only mistaken and misdirected, affection exists. However, a large body of drama, nearly twenty of the seventy-plus plays in this study, presents less ambiguous and more affirmative constructions of female homo-erotic desire. The varied erotic relationships and affectional dispositions in these plays tend to celebrate bonds between women and express female romantic couplings as idealistic unions—offering a utopian vision of female homoerotic desire. Utopian female homoeroticism is utopian in the sense that playwrights effectively align female characters to other female figures in open and often idealized relationships, even arguing strenuously on occasion in favor of female-female love. In these plays, the desired figure might actually be a man in disguise, but the desiring subject perceives only a female presence and believes she loves another woman.

Keywords

Titania Cage Assure Posit Hunt 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Henry Bellamy, Iphis: Text, Translation, Notes, ed. Jay M. Freyman, William E. Mahaney, Walter K. Sherwin, Salzburg Studies in English Literature, Elizabethan and Renaissance Studies 107:1 (Salzburg: Institut Für Anglistik and Amerikanistik Universität Salzburg, 1986), 1–8.Google Scholar
  2. 9.
    Richard Mallette, “Same-Sex Erotic Friendship in The Two Noble Kinsmen,” Renaissance Drama 26 (1995): 30.Google Scholar
  3. 10.
    Laurie J. Shannon, “Emilia’s Argument: Friendship and ‘Human Title’ in The Two Noble Kinsmen,” ELH 64. 3 (1997): 661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 11.
    Shakespeare, The Riverside Shakespeare, 1648. Subsequent quotations are from this edition. Jeffrey Masten offers two readings of this line during his careful analysis of male friendship between Arcite and Palamon. While he agrees that Emilia seems to prefer the love between women to heterosexual romance, he argues that the text positions her back within a patriarchal structure. He also argues that discoursive similarities of male friendship exist in the relationship between Emilia and Flavina, but that the latter’s absence from the play negates the couple. See Masten, Textual Intercourse: Collaboration, Authorship, and Sexualities in Renaissance Drama, Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture 14 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 50–52.Google Scholar
  5. 12.
    Richard Abrams, “Gender Confusion and Sexual Politics in The Two Noble Kinsmen,” in Drama, Sex and Politics, ed. James Redmond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 69–70.Google Scholar
  6. 14.
    Dymock], Il Pastor Fido. Subsequent quotations are from this edition. On the van Dyck painting see, Arthur K. Wheelock, Jr., Susan Barnes, and Julius S. Held, Anthony van Dyck (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990), 239–42.Google Scholar
  7. 18.
    Michael Andrews believes the author of this work had a copy of Sidney’s Arcadia open before him as he wrote the play. See Michael Cameron Andrews, “Sidney’s Arcadia on the English Stage: A Study of the Dramatic Adaptations of The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 1966), 182–83.Google Scholar
  8. 21.
    James Shirley, A Pastorali Called the Arcadia. Acted by her Majesties Servants at the Phoenix in Drury Lane. Written by James Shirly, Gent (London, 1640). Subsequent quotations are from this edition.Google Scholar
  9. 22.
    John Day, The Ile of Guls. As it hath been often playd in the blacke Fryars, by the Children of the Revels. Written by John Day (London, 1606).Google Scholar
  10. 23.
    Louise K. Horowitz, Honoré d’Urfé, TWAS 698 (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1984), 103–08, 111–25.Google Scholar
  11. 29.
    Beaumont, Francis, and John Fletcher, The Works in the Beaumont and Fletcher Canon, ed. Fredson Bowers, vol. 6 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 113–19Google Scholar
  12. 31.
    John Lyly, Gallathea and Midas, ed. Anne Begor Lancashire (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1969), xvi—xvii.Google Scholar
  13. Jeff Shulman, “Ovidian Myth in Lyly’s Courtship Comedies,” Studies in English Literature 25 (1985): 250, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeffrey, John Lyly and the Italian Renaissance (New York: Russell and Russell, 1969), 83.Google Scholar
  15. 32.
    This work is an Elizabethan “three-level” play. Besides the main plot and a well-coordinated subplot, a third plot involves typically clownish character types. See Robert J. Meyer, “ ‘Pleasure Reconciled to Virtue’: The Mystery of Love in Lyly’s Gallathea,” Studies in English Literature 21.2 (1981): 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leah Scragg, “Shakespeare, Lyly and Ovid: The Influence of Gallathea on A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” Shakespeare Survey 30 (1977): 127–30.Google Scholar
  17. 33.
    Robert Y. Turner, “Some Dialogues of Love in Lyly’s Comedies,” English Literary History 29 (1962): 276–88. Discussing the dialogic qualities of several Lyly plays, Turner explains that “unfavorable circumstances” prevent the women from revealing their love and makes their flirtations tentative and indirect.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 34.
    John Lyly, Gallathea. As it was playde before the Quenes Majestie at Greene-wiche, on Newyeeres day at Night. By the Chyldren of Paules (London, 1592). Subsequent quotations are from this edition.Google Scholar
  19. 35.
    Laurie Shannon, “Nature’s Bias: Renaissance Homonormativity and Elizabethan Comic Likeness,” Modern Philology 98.2 (2000): 183–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bruster, “Female—Female Eroticism,” 7–13; Ellen M. Caldwell, “John Lyly’s Gallathea: A New Rhetoric of Love for the Virgin Queen,” English Literary Renaissance 17.1 (1987): 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Joseph W. Houppert, John Lyly, Twayne’s English Authors Series 177 (Boston: Twayne Publisher, 1975), 86.Google Scholar
  22. Christopher Wixson, “Crossing-Dressing and John Lyly’s Gallathea,” SEL Studies in English Literature 1500–1900 41. 2 (2001): 241–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Toni McNaron, “Mirrors and Likeness: A Lesbian Aesthetic in the Making,” in Sexual Practice, Textual Theory: Lesbian Cultural Criticism, ed. Susan J. Wolfe and Julia Penelope (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1993), 291–306.Google Scholar
  24. 36.
    Laurie Shannon, Sovereign Amity: Figures of Friendship in Shakespearean Contexts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 94–95.Google Scholar
  25. 41.
    Lawrence Stone, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500–1800 (London: Harper and Row, 1977), 31. Stone explains that these agreements were as binding as the marriage ceremony. Therefore, this oath effectively unites Gallathea and Phyllida before the play concludes.Google Scholar
  26. 42.
    Joel B. Altman, The Tudor Play of Mind: Rhetorical Inquiry and the Development of Elizabethan Drama (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), 207–09Google Scholar
  27. Susan C. Kemper, “Dramaturgical Design in Lyly’s Gallathea,” THOTH (Fall 1976): 29–30Google Scholar
  28. R. S. White, “Metamorphosis by Love in Elizabethan Romance, Romantic Comedy, and Shakespeare’s Early Comedies,” The Review of English Studies 35 (1984): 26Google Scholar
  29. Jacqueline A. Vanhoutte, “Sacrifice, Violence and the Virgin Queen in Lyly’s Gallathea,” Cahiers Élisabéthains 49 (1996): 8–10; and Jankowski, Pure Resistance, 26.Google Scholar
  30. 45.
    Charles H. Gray, ed., Lodowick Carliell, His Life A Discussion of His Plays and “The Deserving Favourite” (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1905), 18–29.Google Scholar
  31. 47.
    Gray, Lodowick Carliell, 31–36; Harbage, Cavalier Drama, 10, 96; and Karen Wood, “Lodowick Carlell,” in Jacobean and Caroline Dramatists, ed. Fredson Bowers, DLB v. 58 (Detroit: Gale Research, 1987), 45–50. Carlell, like other courtier playwrights wanting to establish a connection with the king and elevate their scripts, flattered Charles as the inspirational source for one of his plays. The King’s epilogue to part one of The Passionate Lovers reads, in part, “If what hath been presented to your sense/You do approve, thank your own influence:/Which moving in the story that you told,/Infus’d new heat into a brain grown cold.”Google Scholar
  32. 48.
    Margaret Barnard Pickel, Charles I as Patron of Poetry and Drama (London: Frederick Muller, 1936), 105.Google Scholar
  33. 49.
    Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong, eds, Inigo Jones, The Theatre of the Stuart Court: including the complete designs for productions at court, for the most part in the collection of the Duke of Devonshire, together with their texts and historical documentation (London: Sotheby Parke Bernet, 1973), 724–26. This book includes sketches by Jones for a court production of The Passionate Lovers.Google Scholar
  34. 51.
    Erica Veevers, Images of Love and Religion: Queen Henrietta Maria and Court Entertainments (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 14–47.Google Scholar
  35. 56.
    Did Carlell’s work, in fact, influence later writers like Philips and Aphra Behn? The pseudonym Philips used, Orinda, is similar to Carlell’s most overtly homoerotic character, Olinda from The Passionate Lovers. Behn’s provocatively homoerotic poem, “To the Fair Clarinda, Who Made Love to Me, Imagin’d More Than Woman,” uses one of the character names from Carlell’s The Deserving Favorite. See Lillian Faderman, Chloe Plus Olivia: An Anthology of Lesbian Literature from the Seventeenth Century to the Present (New York: Penguin Book, 1994), 27.Google Scholar
  36. 57.
    Philip Edwards, et al., The Revels History of Drama in English, vol. W, 1613–1660 (London: Methuen, 1981), 158–59.Google Scholar
  37. 62.
    Lodowick Carlell, The Deseruing Favorite. As it was lately Acted, first before the Kings Majestic, and since publikely at the Black-Friers. By his Majesies Seruants. Written by Lodowicke Carlell, Esquire, Gentle-man of the Bowes, and Groome of the King and Queenes Privie Chamber (London, 1629). Subsequent quotations are from this edition.Google Scholar
  38. 70.
    According to court records, performances of part 1 occurred on 10 July and 18 December 1638, with part 2 following on 20 and 27 December. Pickel, Charles I as Patron, 108–09. See also Gerald Eades Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage: Plays and Playwrights, vol. 3 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 122.Google Scholar
  39. 73.
    Lodowick Carlell, The Passionate Lovers, A Tragi-Comedy, The First and Second Parts. Twice presented before the King and Queens Majesties at Somerset-House, and very often at the Private House in Black-Friars, with great Applaus, by his Majesties Servants. Written by Lodowick Carlell, Gent (London, 1655). Subsequent quotations are from this edition.Google Scholar
  40. 76.
    For the homoerotic implications of Antonio in Twelfth Night, see Joseph Pequigney, “The Two Antonios and Same-Sex Love in Twelfth Night and The Merchant of Venice,” ELR 22 (1992): 201–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Denise A. Walen 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denise A. Walen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations