The King's Favourites

Content

1 Introduction

2 Homosexuality in Early Modern Times

3 Edward II

4 Richard II

5 Conclusion

Works Cited

1 Introduction

This paper’s aim is to analyse and compare the kings Edward II and Richard II as depicted in Marlowe’s and Shakespeare’s plays with special attention to their relationships to their favourites. It cannot, however, take the historical figures of Edward II and Richard II into consideration as this would exceed the paper’s focus.

There are many parallels between the two plays. Each is about a king who is deposed and murdered, and in each the barons accuse the king’s favourites of having manipulated the sovereign to serve their own political advantage. In both plays, the issue of homosexuality comes up: Edward has a homosexual relationship with his favourite Gaveston, Henry Bolingbroke accuses Bushy and Green of having seduced Richard politically as well as sexually and of thus having misled him as a ruler and destroyed the king’s marriage.

The question comes up if both kings’ relationships to their peers really are – as we understand it today – of a homosexual nature. If so: were the favourites accused of having a negative influence on the kings because of their homosexuality? Is homosexuality in itself a charge heavy enough to depose a king? To answer this, chapter two will explain the Elizabethan view on homosexuality, which differs significantly from our own contemporary understanding. Even though the historical settings of both plays are in the Middle Ages, they will be examined from an early modern point of view since they were both written by Elizabethan playwrights for a contemporaneous audience. Subsequent chapters will examine and compare homosexuality within both plays and analyse which role it plays in connection with questions of power and the barons’ revolts.

2 Homosexuality in Early Modern Times

Today, both Edward and Richard are often perceived as being homosexual and effeminate, but what did people think of homosexuality and what did they associate with effeminacy during the early modern period? First of all, the term homosexuality was “invented” during the nineteenth century. According to Wells, no homosexual interpretations of, e.g., Shakespeare’s plays existed until the time when the term homosexuality was first explicitly defined in medical and psychological terms. In the seventeenth century there existed no corresponding word describing what we today would call “homosexual” (71). But even if the term did not yet exist, there were male relationships which included sexual contact. The question arises how Elizabethans defined those relationships.

Firstly, it is important to note that just like today there was not one, singular view on homosexuality during the early modern period. The views of different social, political and religious groups within Elizabethan society contradicted one another (Zimmerman 6) but deviant sexual behaviour like sexual acts outside marriage was often associated with social and ideological disorder and seen as a threat to Protestant values and the social hierarchy (Hammond 3). In legal terms, sodomy was a capital alongside murder and theft – however, the terms “sodomy” and “sodomite” are not identical with our notions of “homosexuality” and “homosexual”. Sodomy itself was not a clearly defined term and not exclusively used to describe homosexual acts. In a very general sense, it referred to any deviant and sinful behaviour in an either moral, social or political context. It could also refer to sexual acts either between members of the same sex, between men and women or between humans and animals (8). Moralists and theologians were convinced that homosexual acts were a sin against God because they could not lead to conception and had the sole purpose of pleasure (Wiggins xviii). But even though they were condemned by religious sources, they still existed within early modern society. And even though homosexuality was officially illegal, it was comparatively seldom prosecuted and punished (Zimmerman 6).

Contradictive tendencies within early modern society included on the one hand capital punishment for sodomists and on the other hand open display of homoerotic desire in art, literature, and the political world. How homosexuality was judged depended on the social and political context. An example is King James I, who wrote Basilicon Doron, a treatise on rulership. There he mentions sodomy alongside unforgivable crimes such as witchcraft, murder, and incest. On the other hand, he was known for his homosexual relationships to his peers and wrote passionate love-letters to the Duke of Buckingham where he talks about making “marriage” with him, calls him his “sweet child and wife” and himself “your dear dad and husband” (Smith 13–14).

Although legal and theological discourse demonised homosexual relationships between men and saw it as a sign of social and moral subversion, homosexuality was, however, usually only called “sodomy” in connection with social or political issues (Hammond 9–10). Sexual acts between men were in itself not considered an offence. And because of its lack of a clear definition, homosexuality in early modern times was not regarded as a behaviour that needed to be kept secret (Smith 12). It was oftentimes displayed within social institutions that would today seem inappropriate for us, for example within male power structures of society (21). Before sexuality was classified into different categories, homosexual acts between men were perceived as rather “normal”. It was impossible to draw a distinct line between close male friendships and homoerotic male relationships (DiGangi 1–2). Of course, not all male friendships in the early modern period had a homoerotic component, but same-gender friendship and sexuality were not as clearly distinguished as they are within our society today. Quite common physical signs of male friendship were, e.g., embracing, kissing and sharing a bed (Hammond 11-12). Male friendship was seen as the most precious form of human relationships, sometimes even prized above marriage. This notion of strong same-gender friendship was an important element in patriarchical Renaissance England (Bach 12–13).

Different from today, effeminacy in a man was not necessarily associated with being homosexual. As Sinfield states, it is wrong to understand effeminacy“as defining of, or as a signal of, same-gender passion” (88). Instead, early modern males created their sense of manliness by surrounding themselves with male friends and through fighting. Effeminacy was understood as being overly emotional, especially concerning relationships with women.

[...]