This question sort of relates indirectly to a thread I had on the old message boards. I did have a thread about Shakespeare and Hamlet. And I did bring up this question–although it technically had nothing to do with my original post.
Anyways, this question was never answered–maybe the boards were messed up before this could happen. So I’ll ask it again.[
Please read:
from Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”.
the scene continues: HAMLET. the paragon of animals! and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
ROSENCRANTZ. My lord, there was no such stuff in my thoughts.
HAMLET. Why did ye laugh then, when I said, Man delights not me?
ROSENCRANTZ. To think, my lord, that if you delight not in man, what lenten entertainment the players shall receive from you. (Etc.)
Question: Is this one of the oldest recorded gay jokes?
Shakespeare’s use of pronouns sometimes confuses me. And frankly, the dialect of Elizabethan English that he uses sometimes makes it hard period just to figure out what is going on in the play.
Are there any Shakespeare scholars out there? This would be right up your alley. Thanks in advance if you do respond to this thread.
This is absolutely and completely a WAG, but I’m guessing that it is not the oldest recorded gay themed joke. There must have been earlier jokes, even if you only admit jokes actually written down, probably even if you stipulated they had to be in English.
It’s not even the first gay joke in Shakespeare. In “As You Like It”, Rosalind, who’s in love with Orlando, and disguised as a man, makes comments about her love for him that we understand as being spoken by a woman, but the other characters think are being spoken by a man.
Yep, there are LOTS of gay jokes in ancient comedy – check out Aristophanes’ The Clouds and Plautus’ Casina for some of the raunchier examples. (You will never look at radishes in quite the same way again.)
As for whether the passage from Hamlet is a double-entendre, all I’m willing to say without further research is that it could be. A few Elizabethan moralists certainly were concerned about the practice of cross-dressing on the stage and whether it led to sexual transgressions in real life. I don’t know how widespread these associations were, but I’m guessing that with all those adolescent boys portraying young and presumably attractive women, there were a few theatergoers interested in getting to know the boy actors a little better offstage. For obvious reasons, we don’t have too many written records of this sort of transaction, but it wouldn’t be surprising if people knew it was going on and joked about it.
Theatre performances were banned during Lent, so what Rosencrantz is suggesting that, with Hamlet going around in a misanthropic sulk, he won’t be wanting any plays performed at court. That is clearly intended as the primary meaning of the exchange.
As to whether there is also a gay joke here, it’s certainly possible, although, if so, one still need not assume that Rosencrantz thinks that Hamlet is gay, as he could just be indulging in a bit of blokeish banter.
Although that particular piece of dialogue is not a “gay joke”, there is some question as to approaching the character of Osric in Hamlet, as his dialogue and affectations approach what would usually be associated with gay stereotypes.
However homosexual innuendo was not unknown amongst the Elizabethans. Witness John Lyly’s “Galathea” (1591 approx.) whose plot revolves around two girls disguised as boys, who, not knowing of each other’s disguise, fall in love. The situation only fixing itself when the God Neptune decrees that on their wedding day, one will be turned into a boy. This narrative was made more convoluted by it being performed by a Boy’s company. (It was a very popular fad from 1590 to around 1600 to have entire companies made up of 10-17 year old boys.)
Anyhoo, there is some homosexual subtext in Hamlet. Just not in that bit.
I can’t see the gay joke in the text, though I can readly imagine how it could PLAY that way on stage, depending on the actors and the production.
As mentioned earlier, though, tere wre gay jokes LONG before Shakespeare. One of the best known was this quip fromnient Rome:
“Gallias Caesar subegit, Caesarem Nicomedes.”
According to legend, after Julius Caesar conquered the Gauls, he had a gay love affair with the Gauls’ king, Nicomedes. And, according to this legend, Caesar was the submissive one in the relationship. Hence that Latin quip, which became popular among the Roman soldiers.
It translates roughly as, “Caesar laid the Gauls low, and Nicomedes laid Caesar low.”
Nicomedes was King of Bithynia, not Gaul. When Caesar was in his early 20s, he went there to get ships for a fleet. After he got back, his political enemies spread the rumor that he slept with Nicomedes to get the ships, one of them, a Marcus Biblius, nicknaming him “Queen of Bithynia”. According to Suetonius, later, after Caesar had conquered Gaul, his soldiers sang the song in his triumph. These are the lines he quotes (in English translation.
All the Gauls did Caesar vanquish, Nicomedes vanquished him;
Lo ! now Caesar rides in triumph, victor over all the Gauls,
Nicomedes does not triumph, who subdued the conqueror.
Oldest? Not by a long shot. Although he’s been mentioned before, you might want to take a look at this entire play, The Thesmophoriazusae, written in 411 B.C.E. by the King of Scatology and Flamer Jokes, Aristophanes.
In this play, 'Stoph focuses on two of his favorite targets, the tradegians Euripides and Agathon. Agathon in particular was an exceptionally fabulous fellow, and like Mel Brooks with Andréas Voutsinas, Aristophanes knew guys like that are good for a laugh. Try not to lose this joke in the silky subtlety:
The line: “why did ye laugh then when I said man delights not me?” makes it seem that Rosencrantz was hinting at homosexuality at least obliquely. Admittedly it doesn’t seem to be a very strong reference, but I think that there must have been at least a hint of innuendo in that exchange that referred to homosexuality.
