Stanley Wells: The sexual reality of Shakespearian drama

In Coriolanus, Aufidius says to Coriolanus: "Let me twine mine arms about that body... I clip the anvil of my sword, and do contest/ As hotly and as noble with thy love/ As ever in ambitious strength I did contend against thy valour... that I see thee here... more dances my rapt heart/ Than when I my wedded mistress saw/ Bestride my threshold."

In modern plays such language would almost inevitably carry imputations of homosexuality. But in Shakespeare, out of a feeling that this must be how chaps talked to one another in those days, and any way that this is poetry and so not to be judged by normal standards of common sense, we suppress any such reaction.

Or at least we used to. When did we stop repressing our natural reactions to words in these circumstances; or, if you like, when did we start allowing the possibilities of sexual undertones to rise to the surface? I have come across no homosexual reading of any Shakespeare plays in the first 300 years of their existence. They did not start, so far as I can tell, until the late 19th century, by which time the possibility that Shakespeare had sexual relationships with men was quite widely and openly discussed.

There is always a sexual element in the relationship between actors and actresses and their audiences. It may lie deep in their subconscious, but it will be there. It is a factor that can be exploited. I have seen actors (and actresses) flirt with audiences. And it may be said that Shakespeare himself encourages this in, especially, the Epilogue to As You Like It. I have seen performers use their roles as vehicles for a covert form of sexual exhibitionism.

If we feel that this is done to the detriment of the play, we have a right to object. On the other hand, actors are, usually, portraying real people, people in whose lives sexuality must play a part, and it is entirely right that they should project these characters in their fullness. They will properly draw upon a play's subtext, and if they find homosexuality, they are right to project it.

Whether in doing so they can be said to be embodying Shakespeare's meaning is debatable. The meanings that we find in plays are culturally determined; some critics would say, entirely so. Still, some aspects of relationships are defined by the texts; others have to be sought under their surface. In exploring these texts, both actors and critics may draw on the findings of psychoanalysis, but dramatic characters are little more than extrapolations from the words of their creator.

To make explicit that which is at the most implicit in the text will close options for some but may excitingly objectify the perceptions of others. As human beings develop ideas about human sexuality, Shakespeare's plays go on yielding new depths of meaning, demonstrating relationships that hold the mirror up to more and more aspects of humanity.