One of the most peculiar traits in Shelley’s psychology was his interest in the theme of incest between a brother and sister. To most of his readers this pre-occupation with such a subject appears repulsive and inexplicable, for there is nothing attractive, or even interesting, in incest per se. Nevertheless, for some obscure reason, the subject fascinated Shelley; and I think we shall be able to explain this fact by connecting it with his general bisexual tendency. We have seen that his heroines and heroes were dual types, in whom the masculine and feminine traits were blended, and that, in The Witch of Atlas, he went a step further, and created an ideal Hermaphrodite, to symbolise his conception of perfect being. Surely it was in the same mood that he originally created Laon and Cythna to be brother and sister; thus emphasising their absolute similarity, and, by their incestuous union, achieving a more complete fusion of the two sexual natures. Swedenborg went a step further in this direction, when he said that two true lovers became, in Heaven, one angel.
It is important to remember that love, in Shelley’s mind, depended upon the perception of the similarity of two lovers; not upon any polar, or complementary attraction. Thus Alastor’s mind “thirsts for intercourse with an intelligence similar to itself”; while Laon refers to:
“That likeness of the features which endears the thoughts expressed by them.” It was for this reason that Shelley made the Spirit of the Earth fall in love with his sister, the moon.
In real life, too, Shelley always sought for a similar soul to mate with. Thus, he calls Hogg: “The Brother of my soul”; and Miss Hitchener, before he knew her intimately, was his “spiritual sister.” And in the same key he cries to Emilia:
“Would we two had been twins of the same mother!” From all these considerations, I think we may suggest that Shelley’s pre-occupation with the theme of incest between brother and sister (for other forms of incest did not occupy his mind at all, except in the one instance of The Cenci, where the interest is purely dramatic) was in reality nothing but a disguised expression of his own bisexual nature; and that Hermaphroditus represents the logical development of this expression.
There can be little doubt that if Shelley had survived a few more years his true nature would have forced itself into his conscious recognition. He seems to have had a predilection for such classical authors as Theocritus, Moschus, and Plato, in all of whom there is an atmosphere of “ideal homosexuality.” He translated a sonnet of Dante’s to Guido Cavalcanti, and another by the latter to Dante, and he had obviously appreciated the significance of Shakespeare’s Sonnets.
If any should be curious to discover
Whether towards you I am Friend or Lover,
Let them read Shakespeare’s Sonnets
During the years 1817-18 he occupied himself much with Plato’s Symposium. He apparently only read this dialogue in Latin, but its thought fascinated him, and he set himself to translate it, and also to write a commentary on its subject. The manner in which he achieved this is significant. In spite of the fact that homosexual love is the theme of the dialogue, and in spite of the fact that this dialogue so fascinated him that its lore became an integral part of his philosophy, his translation omits all the definitely homosexual passages that can possibly be omitted. For example, he omits an entire passage in Alcibiades’ speech, where the drunken youth relates his unsuccessful siege of Socrates, and praises the philosopher for his (to the speaker) superhuman chastity.
The most important omission, however, occurs in the speech of Aristophanes. Plato imagines that Hephæstus appears to two lovers, as they lie inarmed, and offers to grant them their dearest wish, namely, to melt them permanently together into one being. The point of the passage is that the lovers are both male, for Plato wishes to maintain that such lovers are purer, nobler, and less selfishly sensual than the lovers of women. These latter, he says, are sections of the original androgyne, and are for the most part lascivious and adulterous. But the sections of the original double-male, those who seek the love of men, “are the best and most manly of youths.”
We might conclude from these omissions that Shelley, like many a prudish and normal translator, wished to gloss over passages which offended him. But this view is really quite untenable. Shelley was remarkably courageous and frank, and all the evidence shows that he was attracted, and not repelled, by what has been called “ideal homosexuality.” Moreover, he had no need to translate the Symposium at all, and only did so because it fascinated him. In a letter to Peacock dated August 16, 1818, the following instructive passage occurs: “I have translated, and Mary has transcribed, the Symposium, as well as my poem; and I am proceeding to employ myself on a discourse upon the subject of which the Symposium treats, considering the subject with reference to the difference of sentiments respecting it, existing between the Greeks and Modern Nations: a subject to be handled with that delicate caution which either I cannot or I will not practise in other matters, but which here I acknowledge to be necessary. Not that I have any thought of publishing either this discourse or the Symposium, at least till I return to England, when we may discuss the propriety of it.”