Edited by Moe Meyer - Get a Free Blog

suggest that the discursive figure of “The Homosexual” was in the process of
emerging. There was a partial knowledge of the possibility that such a figure
existed, but there was no language with which to articulate that knowledge.
While a discursive homosexual figure had begun to appear in nineteenth-century
sexological and medical tracts, this figure had not yet been dealt with. in terms of
social identity. It was still restricted to descriptions of sexual activities
accompanied by theorizing the possible motives for individual engagement. 5 The
Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, the law under which Wilde would
eventually be brought to trial, was successful in establishing specific sexual acts
within the juridico-legal discourse, but did not specify how one might identify
the individual capable of such acts, and thus also failed to produce a homosexual
signification. These limitations are clearly seen in the difficulties Queensberry’s
de fense faced in trying to attach Wilde’s signifying pose to the practice of
sodomy. They could articulate the act, but not the actor.
If the evidence indicates that there was no discursive homosexual social
identity at this date, and if Wilde entered and exited the first trial without such an
identity, then how could he receive the jail sentence meted out after the third
trial, a sentence that could only be meted out to an individual inscribed into the
juridico-legal discourse as a homosexual? I suggest that between the close of his
libel suit against Queensberry on April 5, 1895 and the close of the State’s case
against him on May 25, that The Homosexual was discursively produced. Yet
how was this possible when Wilde’s own willful efforts to establish this
discursive figure through the signifying pose had been so unsuccessful up to this
date? For an answer, it is necessary to further examine the politics of posing.
SEMIOTIC CRIMES AGAINST NATURE
UNDER THE SIGN OF WILDE 81
Because Queensberry had secured detailed evidence of his criminal sexual
activity, Wilde had admitted to posing as a sodomite in order to terminate the
proceedings before the new evidence could be presented. Wilde’s decision to do
so was based on the assurance that Queensberry, if he won the libel suit, would
remain silent about the details of Wilde’s sexual life. But with the aggressive
vindictiveness that had become his trademark, Queensberry double-crossed him.
After having his way in court, and despite the assurances given Wilde, he
delivered the evidence to the police the very next day after the close of the suit.
Thus began the State’s case against Wilde on charges of sodomy that led, after
two more trials, to his imprisonment.
The trials appear to be the pivotal, historical moment that provided the major
impetus for the recognition of a homosexual social identity by the nongay public
and the adoption of that identity by homosexuals themselves. According to
Jeffrey Weeks, “The Wilde trials were not only the most dramatic, but also the
most significant events, for they created a public image for the homosexual”
(1977:21). They established a physical site for a labeling process during which