In his piece “Fiction and Friction,” Greenblatt mentions Antonio’s passion for Sebastian in passing several times, but he does not spend a particularly long time dwelling on this relationship – arguably the most explicit example of homosexual desire in Twelfth Night. I find it interesting that Antonio is so bold as to declare his love for Sebastian in no uncertain terms, not only to Sebastian himself but also to others – including officers who have come to arrest him for other crimes – especially considering the sentences imposed on Marin le Marcis and his lover during the same time period. In view of the fact that le Marcis and le Febvre were condemned to horrible punishments and grisly deaths for engaging in homosexual behavior, how can Antonio so brazenly declare his homosexual love in such public spaces? Is it a sex-based determination, since le Marcis and le Febvre were both women and Antonio and Sebastian are both men? As Greenblatt points out, Shakespeare frequently makes self-reflexive references to the fact that all female parts in his comedies were being played by men, but Antonio’s love is not an object of levity or humor but one of serious passion, and he is ultimately “left out in the cold” but not threatened with bodily harm (Greenblatt 93). I find it difficult to reconcile such differing reactions to the presence of homosexual love and relations in Elizabethan England. Any ideas?

Somewhat in relation to the discussion we had about interpretation and reading in Twelfth Night, I’ve been thinking about how Shakespeare’s characters’ use of borrowed language so often causes confusion in the interwoven plot-lines.

For example, when Sir Andrew eavesdrops on Viola and Olivia’s conversation in Act III Scene I, he hears Viola’s eloquent, romantic diction and says to Sir Toby, “‘Odors,’ ‘pregnant,’ and ‘vouchsafed’ – I’ll get ’em all three all ready” (NA 1076). The anthology’s footnote tells us that he means to “commit” these words “to memory for later use” (NA 1076). However, being the dolt that he is, Sir Andrew has no idea what these words actually mean, so any “later use” of them will probably be out of context and nonsensical.

Additionally, in Act III Scene IV, Malvolio quotes what he believes to be Olivia’s letter back to her, thinking she will recognize her own words, but she interprets his speech not as quotations but as statements directed toward her, which confuses her so much that she declares, “Why, this is very midsummer madness” (NA 1083).

What do these examples tell us about the Puritans’, and humans’ in general, penchant for borrowing language to serve their own ends, religious and otherwise? How does the interpretation – or literalization – of these words affect conversations and relationships? What arguments might Shakespeare be making about originality and authenticity?