English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

There was a time in Renaissance studies when any acknowledgment of the presence of homosexuality in a poem or play was likely to be accompanied by indignant or apologetic disavowals. Publishing Shakespeare's Bawdy (1947) at a time when "all editions of Shakespeare intended for use in schools were bowd lerized," Eric Partridge protected himself by coming out as one of those rational "heterosexual persons" who must find the notion of a homosexual Shakespeare ludicrous. C. S. Lewis, writing a few years later, could not deny the overt homo eroticism of Richard Barnfield's poetry, but could still express his distaste for the poet's sexual and artistic failures: "His sonnets, like The Affectionate Shepherd, are pederastic, whether because Barnfield suffered in fact from the most uninterest ing of all misfortunes or in a sheer humanist frenzy of imitation."1 During the last quarter century, literary scholars of diverse critical and polit ical stripes have given sustained and rigorous attention not only to Renaissance homosexuality, but also to graphically sexual topics such as bestiality and enemas in A Midsummer's Night Dream and fisting in Coriolanus.2 Yet at least one recent

Queer Theory, Historicism, and Early Modern Sexualities