Home Literary Studies Timon of Athens. Skepticism, Sovereignty, Sodomy
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Timon of Athens. Skepticism, Sovereignty, Sodomy

View more publications by Duke University Press
Shakesqueer
This chapter is in the book Shakesqueer
Timon of AthensSkepticism, Sovereignty, Sodomyjames kuznerWhy discuss Timon of Athens in terms of queer theory? Jody Greene has al-ready told us why, and it has been some time since she did. To rehearse: Shehas shown, at length, that the ‘‘economy’’ of Timon can be seen as a queer orsodomitical one, defined by an ‘‘unnatural’’ expansion and consumption ofwealth that is metaphorically linked to excessive, dangerously wasteful, non-normative sexual exchange. This claim—that although the play could seemto single out Timon as sodomitical, it in fact does nothing of the sort—is afamiliar one, developing as it does Jonathan Goldberg’s account of ‘‘sodome-tries.’’ In tracing the relational structures that cluster around the utterly con-fused category of sodomy, Goldberg shows how ‘‘sodomy’’ could, by defini-tion, be performed by just about anyone yet somehow also ‘‘fully negates theworld, law, nature’’—how it is somehow everywhere and nowhere, ‘‘alwaysmobilizable’’ for just this reason. Like Goldberg, Greene writes that becausethe confused category of sodomy continues to do cultural work, ‘‘The task oftracing out the history of that cultural work and of exposing the ‘confusions’surrounding the definition of the sodomitic is a pressing and a timely one.’’So that is why Timon ought to be discussed alongside queer theory. It permitsus to think queerness well beyond directly sexual contexts; in presentingeconomic figurations of sodomy, it broadens our sense of how this categorycan be used to stigmatize.Discussing Timon in terms of queer theory, from this point of view, meanstracing the pernicious potential of confused categories. The play surely en-gages with queer theory in the manner outlined earlier, and yet we couldquestion whether giving and taking, as the play represents them, are always as‘‘grim’’ as Greene claims. Greene justifies her claim as follows: Unlike life asShakespeare might imagine it within a more moderate order, Timon’s giving(until there is nothing left to give) and others’ taking (all that he gives) producea paradoxical economy—excessive consumption that is somehow never
© 2020 Duke University Press, Durham, USA

Timon of AthensSkepticism, Sovereignty, Sodomyjames kuznerWhy discuss Timon of Athens in terms of queer theory? Jody Greene has al-ready told us why, and it has been some time since she did. To rehearse: Shehas shown, at length, that the ‘‘economy’’ of Timon can be seen as a queer orsodomitical one, defined by an ‘‘unnatural’’ expansion and consumption ofwealth that is metaphorically linked to excessive, dangerously wasteful, non-normative sexual exchange. This claim—that although the play could seemto single out Timon as sodomitical, it in fact does nothing of the sort—is afamiliar one, developing as it does Jonathan Goldberg’s account of ‘‘sodome-tries.’’ In tracing the relational structures that cluster around the utterly con-fused category of sodomy, Goldberg shows how ‘‘sodomy’’ could, by defini-tion, be performed by just about anyone yet somehow also ‘‘fully negates theworld, law, nature’’—how it is somehow everywhere and nowhere, ‘‘alwaysmobilizable’’ for just this reason. Like Goldberg, Greene writes that becausethe confused category of sodomy continues to do cultural work, ‘‘The task oftracing out the history of that cultural work and of exposing the ‘confusions’surrounding the definition of the sodomitic is a pressing and a timely one.’’So that is why Timon ought to be discussed alongside queer theory. It permitsus to think queerness well beyond directly sexual contexts; in presentingeconomic figurations of sodomy, it broadens our sense of how this categorycan be used to stigmatize.Discussing Timon in terms of queer theory, from this point of view, meanstracing the pernicious potential of confused categories. The play surely en-gages with queer theory in the manner outlined earlier, and yet we couldquestion whether giving and taking, as the play represents them, are always as‘‘grim’’ as Greene claims. Greene justifies her claim as follows: Unlike life asShakespeare might imagine it within a more moderate order, Timon’s giving(until there is nothing left to give) and others’ taking (all that he gives) producea paradoxical economy—excessive consumption that is somehow never
© 2020 Duke University Press, Durham, USA

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter i
  2. Contents v
  3. Acknowledgments ix
  4. Introduction. Queer Shakes 1
  5. All is True (Henry VIII) The Unbearable Sex of Henry VIII 28
  6. All’s Well That Ends Well Or, Is Marriage Always Already Heterosexual? 39
  7. Antony and Cleopatra Aught an Eunuch Has 48
  8. As You Like It Fortune’s Turn 55
  9. Cardenio ‘‘Absonant Desire’’: The Question of Cardenio 62
  10. The Comedy of Errors In Praise of Error 72
  11. Coriolanus ‘‘Tell Me Not Wherein I Seem Unnatural’’: Queer Meditations on Coriolanus in the Time of War 80
  12. Cymbeline desire vomit emptiness: Cymbeline’s Marriage Time 89
  13. Hamlet Hamlet’s Wounded Name 97
  14. Henry IV, Part 1. When Harry Met Harry 106
  15. Henry IV, Part 2. The Deep Structure of Sexuality: War and Masochism in Henry IV, Part 2 114
  16. Henry V. Scambling Harry and Sampling Hal 121
  17. Henry VI, Part 1. ‘‘Wounded Alpha Bad Boy Soldier’’ 130
  18. Henry VI, Part 2. The Gayest Play Ever 139
  19. Henry VI, Part 3. Stay 146
  20. Julius Caesar. Thus, Always: Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln 152
  21. King John. Queer Futility: Or, The Life and Death of King John 163
  22. King Lear. Lear’s Queer Cosmos 171
  23. A Lover’s Complaint. Learning How to Love (Again) 179
  24. Love’s Labour’s Lost. The L Words 187
  25. Love’s Labour’s Won. Doctorin’ the Bard: A Contemporary Appropriation of Love’s Labour’s Won 194
  26. Macbeth. Milk 201
  27. Measure for Measure. Same-Saint Desire 209
  28. The Merchant of Venice. The Rites of Queer Marriage in The Merchant of Venice 216
  29. The Merry Wives of Windsor. What Do Women Want? 225
  30. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Shakespeare’s Ass Play 234
  31. Much Ado About Nothing Closing Ranks, Keeping Company: Marriage Plots and the Will to be Single in Much Ado About Nothin 245
  32. Othello Othello’s Penis: Or, Islam in the Closet 254
  33. Pericles ‘‘Curious Pleasures’’: Pericles beyond the Civility of Union 263
  34. The Phoenix and the Turtle Number There in Love Was Slain 271
  35. The Rape of Lucrece. Desire My Pilot Is 278
  36. Richard II. Pretty Richard (in Three Parts) 286
  37. Richard III. Fuck the Disabled: The Prequel 294
  38. Romeo and Juliet. Romeo and Juliet Love Death 302
  39. Sir Thomas More More or Less Queer 309
  40. The Sonnets. Momma’s Boys 319
  41. The Sonnets. Speech Therapy 328
  42. The Sonnets. More Life: Shakespeare’s Sonnet Machines 333
  43. The Taming of the Shrew. Latin Lovers in The Taming of the Shrew 343
  44. The Tempest. Forgetting The Tempest 351
  45. Timon of Athens. Skepticism, Sovereignty, Sodomy 361
  46. Titus Andronicus. A Child’s Garden of Atrocities 369
  47. Troilus and Cressida. The Leather Men and the Lovely Boy: Reading Positions in Troilus and Cressida 376
  48. Twelfth Night. Is There an Audience for My Play? 385
  49. The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Pageboy, or, The Two Gentlemen from Verona: The Movie 394
  50. The Two Noble Kinsmen. Philadelphia, or, War 404
  51. Venus and Adonis. Venus and Adonis Frieze 414
  52. The Winter’s Tale. Lost, or ‘‘Exit, Pursued by a Bear’’: Causing Queer Children on Shakespeare’s tv 421
  53. References 429
  54. Further Reading 449
  55. Contributors 467
  56. Index 477
Downloaded on 21.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780822393337-043/html?srsltid=AfmBOopPqAnD5SuMxeJd8mRE5XqqHRXyITWt3pGRfoFHmsbI1uO0i_2l
Scroll to top button