Abstract:not constituted in relation to masculine fantasies or demands. Rather than nightmares of women’s affective and embodied fluidity, this romance instead charts the ways that an impenetrable feminine body produces desires that cannot be contained by masculinist fantasies of penetration or manipulation. It is only with his Thisbe, whom Allen-Goss considers alongside Ariadne in Chapter Five, that Chaucer creates a narrative of feminine innocence that might exceed the phallic logic that a masculinist hermeneutic demands. By reading these women’s relation to veiling and reading, Chaucer’s legends entertain the possibility of lesbian-like erotic that admits feminine desire through gaps and openings in edifices conventionally drawn to render women’s bodies as available to men’s sexual domination. By circumscribing the desire Chaucer associates with these women, these legends mark feminine eroticism as deviant in a way that assures Chaucer’s own gendered authority. In Chapter Six, Allen-Goss turns to the late fifteenth-century romance, Undo Your Door, to argue that ‘female sexuality [is] represented as a transgressive yet creative force, which . . . assembles its own objects of desire from inanimate materials and from mechanisms disturbingly reminiscent of the objects medieval writers associated with same-sex desire and female autoerotic satisfaction’ (p. 166). By showing how women’s desire is associated with inanimacy, this popular and influential romance critiques the conventional procreative impetus of the genre, particularly its reliance on women’s passivity. This study is groundbreaking for its willingness to rethink how overlooked genres—romance and legend—might admit female same-sex desires that are usually proscribed or overwritten. Yet the analysis of romance is more persuasive, mainly because Allen-Goss explains how the very marginality of such stories might be conducive to an alternative hermeneutics. With Chaucer, Allen-Goss is convinced that women’s desire is ultimately conscripted to support a version of masculinist auctoritas informed by Jerome’s misogynist version of hermeneutics. I disagree, mainly because I am more interested in where women might take these narratives than where ‘father Chaucer’ wanted them to go. Despite this difference, I view AllenGoss’s call to consider feminine desire outside or beyond the structures of masculine fantasies as one of the most important interventions in feminist critical thought for late medieval English literary studies.

Tradition and the individual sodomite: Barnfield, Shakespeare, and subjective desire

Havelock Ellis's literary criticism, canon formation, and the heterosexual Shakespeare

Lesbian erotics: the utopian trope of Donne's "Sapho to Philaenis"

Queer(ed) Bodies: Subversive Sexualities and Gender Identities in Shakespeare’s As You Like It

A Lanthorn in the Crypt: White Erotics in Romeo and Juliet

Sodomy and kingcraft in Urania and Antony and Cleopatra

Ancient Greek Homosexuality:A Historical Analysis

Medieval Literature and Social Politics: Studies of Cultures and Their Contexts by Stephen Knight (review)

The Subject of the Dialectic: Some Consequences of Freud's Bisexuality Thesis

Oscar Wilde and the scarlet woman

INWARDNESS FROM THE MIDDLE AGES TO THE RENAISSANCE

Gay re-readings of the Harlem Renaissance poets

Homosexuality in Cross-Cultural Perspective

Heterosexuality, Male Dominance, and the Father Image

Utopia and dystopia in homoerotic territory in Alan Hollinghurst's "The swimming-pool library", "The folding star" and "The spell"

Constitutive signifiers or fetishes in Shakespeare's the Merchant of Venice?

Constructions of Homosexuality in the Art of Francis Bacon

From sodomy to homosexuality: the role of criminal law in Filippo Maria Renazzi's Rome between the Enlightenment and the Napoleonic Era

Polyphonies of sexuality: Debates about theories/debates about paradigms

The Cultural Construction of Heterosexual Identities

Shakespeare and Ecocriticism Reconsidered