Talk:Edward II (play)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

[edit] Homoeroticism

"Although the play's opening speech is heavily homoerotic in its language, the nature of Gaveston's relationship with the king is never explicitly spelled out"

Is this a general view? It is explicit, by reference after reference to Greek mythology (and more). What I think should be elaborated on is the conclusion of that sentence "...which is not surprising given the strict censorship of plays at the time." Did this strict censorship allow for that much suggestiveness? Njál 22:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well... obviously it did, since the play was performed and published. The Singing Badger 22:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes — so why is the censorship called 'strict'? Njál 16:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Presumably because hi didn't permit explicit references to homosexuality. But to be honest, I'm pretty sure there are plays that do that, so it's better to simply cut the phrase until someone comes up with a source. The Singing Badger 16:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What counts as an 'explicit reference' (I'd call Edward II explicit because (I think) it's intended to be obvious) — can you tell me the names of the plays that are more so? Was censorship done according to some sort of code, or was it up to the censors? What were they trying to avoid being published/performed (on the moral/decency side, not the political one)? Njál 18:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is perfectly correct, Edward's sexuality is never explicitly spelled out. Of the course the language is heavily suggestive of his homosexuality, but that is not to say it is explicit - in order to be explicit his homosexuality would have to be irrefutable, which it isn't. The Elizabethans were still profoundly religious, with their notions of sexual morality largely adhering to Biblical scripture and Aquinas' philosophy. As homosexuality can never result in conception it has no 'final cause' (to use Aquinas' phrase), therefore going against God's will. Homosexuality was punishable by death, although this rarely occured. This is why Marlowe approaches the matter with a degree of delicacy; Edward is potrayed as homosexual, yet to state this overtly may well offend the public sense of decency and upset the censorship authorities. Kevshev 22:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)