AN ORTHODOX RITE OF HOMOSEXUAL UNION?: A COMPILATION OF RECENT INTERNET DISCUSSIONS COMPILER: PAUL HALSALL from VARIOUS AUTHORS Version 2 New York: May 2, 1994 I PROLOGUE The following information will interest very many people. Taken from various Internet discussion lists, especially MEDGAY- L@KSUVM.KSU.EDU (Medieval Gay Studies), it is a composite of recent discussions and texts/translations of an old "marriage" rite [see discussion on this in Appendix I] from Greek Orthodox sources. John Boswell, whose book Same Sex Unions in Pre- Modern Europe, (New York: Villiard, 1994) will be published in May 1994, has found over a hundred such texts. The text here is just one of many. PAUL HALSALL **************** From: ANTONY FRANKS FRANKS%MAIL.LOC.GOV@KSUVM.KSU.EDU Subject: MARRIAGE LITURGY FOR MEN POST 1 I received over the holidays a "theological samidzat" translation from an *abridged* Greek edition of the Orthodox marriage liturgy for men. The translation stems from a seminar a few (2-3) years ago. I've managed to double-check the translation, and it seems reliable. POST 2 Okay. So far, it's been mostly yeses. One person has said "Wait till Boswell's book comes out." If I figure out how to do this, he'll publish, making this at best an exercise. If I don't, the book won't come out--again. In the past 7 years, I have cataloged pre- publication galleys for said book TWICE, and each time the publisher has withdrawn it. Besides, the more info the better. And, this stuff was left for me with the intimation that it was safer for me to disseminate it than for the actual perpetrator. So, here goes: II INTRODUCTION [text given, without original author, by A. Franks] "This service is a rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church dating from very early times and assuming its present form between the fourth and ninth centuries AD. This service is translated from the Euchologion of Jacobus Goar, which was printed in 1647 and revised in 1730. A facsimile of the 1730 edition, published in Graz, Austria, in 1960, is the edition available in many theological libraries. With the rising influence of western ideas in recent centuries, this rite ceased to be practiced widely and was largely forgotten or ignored except in isolated areas, most notably Albania and other areas in the Balkans, where it flourished throughout the nineteenth century and up to at least 1935. Both men and women were united with this rite or similar ones." "This rite is called "spiritual" because the relationship between spiritual brothers is not one of blood-relation but of the Holy Spirit, and also to distinguish the rite from blood-brotherhood, which the Church opposed. In the service, the saint-martyrs Sergius and Bacchus are invoked, who were united in spiritual brotherhood "not bound by the law of nature but by the example of faith in the Holy Spirit". These saints were tortured and martyred late in the third century AD. when they refused to worship the emperor's idols. In their biography by Simeon Metaphrastes (available in J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 115, pp. 1005-1032) they are described as sweet companions and lovers to each other." [Note from A. Franks:: I have vetted these comments and another article I acquired at the same time against the MPG 115 ed. Sergius and Bacchus, indeed, are h^eteros and erotik^as, that is companions and physical lovers.] "This rite is incorporated into the Divine Liturgy. It begins with the usual blessing and prayers of a Liturgy. During the Great Synapte, petitions for the couple to be united in spiritual brotherhood are added to the usual petitions. After the First Antiphon, two special prayers are said for the couple, after which they kiss the Gospel Book and each other. After the priest sings a hymn, the Liturgy continues at "Have mercy on us, O God .. ". Accounts of the use of this rite (such as Nacke, _Jahrbuch fuer sexuelle Zwischenstufen_ 9 (1908),. 328) confirm that the spiritual brothers receive Holy Communion together, thereby forming the sacramental bond in this union. However, Goar mentions in a footnote that in some manuscripts, the couple is only blessed with holy water." III "MARRIAGE" RITE TEXT PRIEST: Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us. (3 times). Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. All-Holy Trinity, have mercy on us. Lord forgive our sins. Master, pardon our transgressions. Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities for your name's sake. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Lord, have mercy. Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. (After this, the priest says the Troparion.) Save, O Lord, your servants, and bless your inheritance. (And the two who are about to be joined together in brotherly unity place their hands on the holy Gospel book, which has been prepared and placed on the table. And they hold in their hands lighted candles.) (And the priest says the following, so that it is heard from above: Save, O Lord, your servants. Followed by the Troparion of the day) Glory to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Holy Apostles, intercede with the merciful God to grant our souls forgiveness of sins. Now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. Through the intercessions, O Lord, of all the saints and of the Theotokos, grant us your peace and have mercy upon us, only merciful One. THE GREAT SYNAPTE. (The responses of "Lord, have mercy" are understood.) In peace let us pray to the Lord. For the peace that is from above, and for the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord. For the peace of the entire world, the welfare of the holy churches of God, and the union of all of them, let us pray to the Lord. For this holy house, and for those who enter it with faith, reverence, and fear of God, let us pray to the Lord. For our Archbishop, the honorable priesthood, the deacons in Christ, and all of the clergy and laity, let us pray to the Lord. For the servants of God who have approached to be blessed by Him, and for their love (agapesis) in God, let us pray to the Lord. That they may be given full knowledge of the apostolic unity, let us pray to the Lord. That they may be granted a faith unashamed, a love unfeigned, let us pray to the Lord. That they may be deemed worthy to glory in the honorable Cross, let us pray to the Lord. That both they and we may be delivered from all affliction, wrath, and distress, let us pray to the Lord. Help us, save us, have mercy on us and keep us, O God, by your grace. PEOPLE: Amen. PRIEST: Having called to remembrance our all-holy, immaculate, most blessed, glorious Lady Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, with all the Saints, let us commend ourselves and one another, and all our life unto Christ our God. PEOPLE: To You, O Lord. PRIEST (quietly): O Lord our God, whose might is beyond compare, whose glory is incomprehensible, whose mercy is infinite, and whose love toward mankind is ineffable; in Your tender compassion look down upon us Yourself, O Master, and upon this holy house, and grant us and those who pray with us Your rich mercies and compassion. PRIEST (aloud): For to You are due all glory, honor, and worship; to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. PEOPLE: Amen. PRIEST: Let us pray to the Lord. Lord our God, who has granted us all things for salvation, and who has commanded us to love one another and to forgive each others' transgressions; now You Yourself, Master and Lover of mankind, to these Your servants who have loved each other with spiritual love, and who approach Your holy temple to be blessed by You, grant to them a faith unashamed, a love unfeigned. And as You gave Your holy disciples Your own peace, also grant these all the petitions for salvation, and eternal life. For You are a merciful and loving God, and to You we ascribe glory, to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Let us pray to the Lord. Lord our God, the omnipotent, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, who made man according to Your image and likeness, who was well- disposed to Your holy martyrs Sergius and Bacchus becoming brothers, not bound by the law of nature but by the example of faith of the Holy Spirit; Master, do send down Your Holy Spirit upon Your servants who have approached this temple to be blessed. Grant them a faith unashamed, a love unfeigned, and that they may be without hatred and scandal all the days of their lives. Through the prayers of Your immaculate Mother and of all the Saints. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and to the ages. (And with the table made ready in the middle of the church, they place the holy Gospel upon it. And they kiss the Holy Gospel, and each other.) THEN THE PRIEST SINGS: By the union of love the apostles join in the praying to the Master of all; themselves committed to Christ, they extended their beautiful feet, announcing the good news of peace to everyone. PRIEST: Have mercy on us, O God. (And continues the Liturgy.) APPENDIX I - DISCUSSION OF THE TEXT [The original posting by Anthony Frank initiated a long discussion on a variety of email lists, since it had been forwarded to many of them. The texts here, by a variety of authors, discuss various aspects of the "same-sex union" texts. As presented here they are lightly edited for hard-copy purposes. Some names have been removed for reasons of privacy.] FROM: MARK D. JORDAN MEDPHI%IRISHMVS.BITNET@uwavm.u.washington.edu I want to thank Anthony Franks for providing the citation to the Byzantine rite of "spiritual friendship" in Goar's Euchologion. At the same time, I want to say that I can only hope that John Boswell has more to give us than this text. Because what we have here is not much. First, the edition itself. Goar is no doubt a remarkable scholar of Greek liturgy for the 17th century--and I am always ready to praise ecclesiastical scholars of that time (having spent too many years working through the ecclesiastical scholarship handed down to us in Migne's PL). Moreover, Goar's edition gives every indication of philological care--say, in the reproduction of MS variants. But his editorial prologues are to be accepted with caution. And so the assertion about the age of the rite cannot be taken as authoritative. (For Goar, see Quetif-Echard Scriptores vol. 2 574b-575b). Second, the context of the rite. It occurs not as part of the discussion of marriage liturgies, but in a section of miscellaneous prayers. It is preceded by a prayer for the reconciliation of enemies and followed by prayers for a healing rite (Goar, Euchologion [rptd Graz 1960], pp. 705-706 and 709-710). The prayers of healing are followed by a calendar of readings for the liturgical year from the Gospels and Paul. Third, the rite itself. The thing is called an order (akolouthia) for adelphopoiian, that is, for making an adelphos, that is, for adopting one as brother (or sister). The word and its siblings appear first with that fairly specific legal sense, which is then transferred to theological and spiritual uses (as in Christ's adopting us as brothers). So that the proper analogue is not marriage, but adoption. Hence Goar seems quite right to stress in his note (709) that the principal motive for the use of the rite is the desire to establish a spiritual and legal connection outside of blood-lines or marriage. Hence too the mentions of Sergius and Bacchus are to be weighed against the mentions of Peter and Paul and of all the apostles, as well as of Cosmas and Damian or Cyrus and John (Varia lectiones, 708, first two additional prayers). Fourth, and leaving aside my constructivist prejudices, I am perfectly willing to "read" this rite as expressing or repressing or coopting any number of homoerotic or homosocial desires and practices. Indeed, I am even willing to join efforts on behalf of its immediate restoration as a liturgy in the Eastern churches and churches liturgically connected to them--as the Anglican churches. But I am not willing to say that the rite represents or even provides evidence of "gay [!] marriage. "Sorry to be such a curmudgeon. FROM: ANTHONY FRANKS FRANKS%MAIL.LOC.GOV@KSUVM.KSU.EDU I, too, had and still have misgivings on the Goar text--it is an abbreviated one, but at the moment, it seems to be the only one in print. I do have some methodological observations to make, and I hope no one gets overly sensitive about them. The first is, everyone seems to be using Latin sources and secondary editions. Most of the source material that deals frankly with these matters--both marriage and Sergius and Bacchus, is in Greek. The Latin translations are not, shall we say, entirely accurate. In the Migne ed. of Simeon Metaphrastes, the Greek says they're lovers. The Latin trans. says they're just good friends. Finally, when you're using editions, such as Goar, you're at the mercy of the editor's prejudices in organizing the texts. Goar, it is true, puts the marriage rite for men in the "other stuff" section of the book. Greek manuscripts organized by function-of-rite place it in "Gamos" with other marriage rites. In short, what we're seeing in most of our Latin and Roman Catholic sources is filtered through the editor, compiler, translator's mindset--and, as we're all aware, there are none so blind as those who will not see. I have an oddball reference for all: an article by Nicholas Zymaris, State University of New York at Stony Brook, entitled "The Rite of 'Spiritual Brotherhood', homosexuality, and the Orthodox Church". I have a Xerox of it, but no citation whence it came. It is obviously, though, a published article from somewhere. I hope someone can track it down--I can't, and it is very good. It leaves little doubt that, indeed, it's a marriage rite for persons of the same gender. FROM "MARK D. JORDAN" MEDPHI%IRISHMVS.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU I agree entirely with Anthony Franks about the dangers of construing Greek texts through Latin eyes. Indeed, one of the things I was going to say last night about Goar is that it would be very odd indeed if there were something scandalous in his liturgical anthology, given his own career as a Dominican administrator and the numerous testimonies of orthodoxy prefixed to the edition. And I am also willing to take Goar's notes with several pounds of salt. But my main point was precisely a point about the Greek. If Goar's edition gives us the correct title, the rite is a rite for spiritual adelfopoiia, not of spiritual marriage and not even of spiritual friendship. Adelfopoiia (or adelfopoiesis or adelfopoios) cannot I think be translated as friendship or marriage without some explanation, indeed without justification, because the word means *adoption* in most contexts that I can find. There are citations in Liddell & Scott and in Lampe--or, for that matter, in Du Cange's Glossarium mediae & infimae Graecitatis. With the aid of the Thesaurus Linguae Greaca , I found one interesting and rather early use in Athanasius, Orationes tres contra Arianos, orat.2 sect.63 (Migne PG 26.280A-B). Athanasius uses the word, as do many later authors, to describe adoption by Christ. Now an argument can of course be made that this liturgy was used historically not for the purposes of spiritual adoption but for purposes that we would want to describe as those of recognizing or blessing a union of affection and life between two persons of the same genital configuration. Perhaps that is just the argument that Boswell will make. But it is not an argument evident just from the letter of the text. Two final things: First, note that many of the uses of adelfopoiia and its cognates occur in legislation prohibiting the use of this rite between monks--which ought to be connected with the use of the notion of brotherhood as a general description of the relations among all monks. Second, I would be delighted to have MS references to codices that place this rite alongside marriage liturgies. Third, I can't find anything by Nicholas Zymaris on any of the Wilson databases. I will go onto Dialog in a bit, but I wonder if anyone else was having any luck finding the piece. With reiterated thanks to Anthony Franks for stirring up such interesting issues, FROM: DAVID GREENBERG DGREENBERG%NYUACF.BITNET@UWAVM.U.WASHINGTON.E DU I am no specialist on any type of Christian ritual, but I am extremely skeptical of any assertion that either the Byzantine or Roman Catholic Church ever had any ritual that legitimated a sexual relationship between persons of the same sex who underwent this type of ritual. The prohibitions against such sexual contact were absolute. I believe these couples were supposed to remain chaste, whatever the nature of the emotional bonds that held them together. For this reason these rituals make a poor precedent for contemporary efforts to obtain recognition for gay marriages. The historian Eugene Rice of Columbia University has told me that he has read John Boswell's manuscript, and that Boswell makes no claim that these rituals legitimated sexual relationships. I think a lot of purchasers of this book are going to be disappointed, because they are not going to find what the promotion is leading them to believe is in it. - FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU [In response to David Greenberg] I agree with much of Professor Greenberg's argument here, but want to make some comments nevertheless. 1. "Marriage" is functioning as an undefined term in discussions here. Roman Catholic canon law, for practical reasons, has long emphasized the sexual aspect of marriage. In Byzantium, I think, this was much less prominent: repeatedly one comes across saints who have agreed to marry, but not to engage in sex. Ideal "marriage" does not necessarily involve sex. 2. I am a little surprised to see an author who has delivered a notable contribution to the theory that sexuality is "constructed", seem so willing to accept that absolute prohibitions made in one period would continue in full force in succeeding, and very different periods. Let me put it another way: canonical prohibitions against remarriage after divorce were "absolute" in 7th century Byzantine Christianity [I am relying on the work of my former fellow-student at Fordham, Carmen Hernandez, who pursued this issue in depth], nevertheless such remarriages were allowed in the later Byzantine period. One period's absolutes may become another's hazy "ideals". 3. I am also not convinced that such ceremonies as Boswell claims to have dug up [and on videotape he *does* claim they were for sexual relationships] should not be precedents for modern gay wedding ceremonies, if people want to have them. Lillian Faderman has argued that probably-asexual romantic friendships between women *are* part of Lesbian history. Similarly ceremonies which have invoked societal approval on male bonding [and, I gather, female bonding as well] could surely be invoked as part of the legitimate heritage of modern gay people. Of course for pious constructionists [:-)] such a proposition is ludicrous: the construction of ever-new "epistemes" surely eviscerates any such concept of "heritage". But, psychologically, I think this does not work: no matter how convinced I am by writers in this school [and I do find much of what they say compelling], like David Hume rising from his desk, their arguments melt away, and I see the political utility of appropriating such a heritage. All heritage's are appropriated: I see little reason to hinder modern gays and lesbians in appropriating theirs. FROM: DAVID GREENBERG DGREENBERG@ACFcluster.NYU.EDU Subject: gay marrriage I didn't save the text of my posting, but I can quickly summarize the gist of it, which was that to the best of my understanding, these rituals never endorsed sexual relations between two men or between two women, and for that reason did not make a very good precedent for contemporary arguments in favor of gay marriage. I might have added two remarks. One was that even if the couples were expected to remain chaste, the rituals could and probably were put to their own uses by lovers who wanted to formalize their ties to one another. Secondly, when I referred to precedent, I really had legal precedent in mind. Not long ago I read William Eskridge's legal brief prepared for a court case involving gay marraiges, and found myself appalled at the way marriage was conceived. He does not give a formal definition, but conceives of marriage as broad enough to include Achiles and Patrocles, Gilgamesh and Enkidu, Ruth and Naomi, etc., which is insensitive to the historically specific meaning that marriage had in the ancient societies. - David G. FROM: ANTONY FRANKS FRANKS%MAIL.LOC.GOV@KSUVM.KSU.EDU I must agree with Paul Halsall's wise comments on absolutes. I remain skeptical about an "activist's" interpretation of this rite, but there's so much talk about it, I thought it would be good for folks to see it. In Roman canon law, there is (or was, my courses were before the new code) provision for "Josephite marriage"--celibate marriage. Sex, however, and not just once on the wedding night, was a requirement for the creation of a valid marriage. Without it, or its denial by one party to the marriage, annulments could be granted-- Pope Alexander VI, I think, issued a bull on the matter. It is unfortunate that the article by Nicholas Zymaris has no cite on it. If it would help matters, I will isolate a bibliography from his citations and transmit that. He addresses the issue of the purpose of the marriage rite, and the understanding of the society using it. This whole matter of a marriage rite for men is causing some interesting problems among Orthodox in the West Coast. I've been told by one priest that the practical problem for the hierarchy is, that if this was a valid, historical rite of the church, then it can be used again now, if there is a need for it. All it takes is a priest with an ecclesiastical death wish. Unlike the roman rite, "approved rites" is a rather looser concept. FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Here is some more useful information on the exact significance of the "adelphopoiia" ceremony, which points to its commonly-known usage as a rite to sanctify homosexual sexual relationships. The text I post here is from The Rudder ["Pedalion" in Greek], a compilation and commentary on Orthodox canon law by Saint Agapius, a hieromonk, and Saint Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain circa 1800. In many respects it is not trustworthy, at least as regards ancient canon law. It is, conversely, very useful information on Orthodoxy in Greece two hundred years ago. The citation of the version I am using is: Agapius the hieromonk and Nicodemos the monk, The Rudder..., trans. D. Cummings, (Chicago: Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1957; repr. 1983), from the fifth edition edited by Ioannes Nikolaides in Athens, 1908. From p.977 on there is an attempt to bring together all the laws concerning marriage. Chapter 10 of this section [p.997] addresses under the general heading of marriage "Brothership by Adoption". (See A. Franks note above about the general tendency to deal with this ceremony along with {other?} marriage texts or canons in Greek sources.) Here is the text from The Rudder: [the references are those given in the text] "So called brothership-by-adoption is not only prohibited by ch.35 of Title XIII of Book V of the law (p.217 of _Jus Greco-Romanum_) altogether, and rejected by the Church of Christ, but is also contrary to nature, according to Demetrius Chomatianus(ibid.). For adoption imitates nature, but nature never generates a brother, but only a son. So adoption, as imitating nature, cannot make a brother. Hence such a thing as making a brother by adoption not only is not practicable or to be considered to constitute an obstacle to marriage among themselves of such allegedly adopted brothers, but neither ought it to be projected at all. For it ought to be rejected from the Church of Christ, on the ground that it is the cause of many evils and of the perdition of souls to most of them, and merely afford matter for some persons to fulfill their carnal desires and to enjoy sensual pleasures, as countless examples of actual experience have shown at various times and in various places" Clearly Agapius and Nicodemos were not happy with adelphopoiia, which they indicate is still going on, and which we have see had a distinct rite. They also are quite aware, I think, that "adoption" is not what was going on in this rite [one person "adopts" another; two people do not "adopt" each other]. I am not clear what the line about "an obstacle to marriage among themselves" means - it reads as if there was another specifically male marriage ceremony, but this seems unlikely. What is clear is that they regarded it as common knowledge that the adelphopoiia ceremony was connected, in practice, to the fulfillment of carnal desires. It seems fair, if The Rudder is correct, to regard the adelphopoiia ceremony, sanctioned by usage by the Orthodox church and people [although, evidently, resisted by some] as a ceremony celebrating, and giving religious significance to, homosexual sexual unions, and that this was done with common knowledge. FROM: ED. PINARIN [posted on; MEDIEV-L%UKANVM.bitnet@vm42.cso.uiuc.edu] [Responding to a post of the "marriage rite"] It seems that the rite described here is that of adoption of a brother. "Spiritual brotherhood" is opposed to the pagan rite of adoption of a brother by mixing his blood with one's own. I think it's a far-fetched assumption to call it a homosexual marriage. The Orthodox Church has always condemned homosexuality, as well as bestiality, pedophilia, adultery, and fornication. In medieval Russia (they got their faith from the Greeks) homosexuality was a capital offense. If my memory serves me correctly, gay men were burnt alive on fire and lesbian women were beheaded. (Cf. Kotoshikhin, Grigorii Karpovich, "Rossiia v tsarstvovanie Alekseia Mikhailovicha"; "Ulozhenie 1649 g." (Russian Law Code of 1649).) That was before the introduction of Western ideas to Russia under Peter the Great. FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU [In response to ED PINARIN] As I tried to indicate by including some critical discussion, I think that exaggerated interpretations of these sorts of ceremonies need to be viewed with great caution. On the other hand I do not think the situation in Russia has any bearing on interpretation of earlier texts. The problem is this: modern political correctness" {TM} may very well lead to misinterpretation of the past; but the track record of "theological correctness", to coin a phrase, in distorting the past and conforming it to present beliefs is far worse. When it comes to discussing "homosexual marriage" these issues come to the fore rather strongly. What is marriage? Does it involve sexual relationships? Is it a legal contract? Does it necessitate consent of all parties? Is it "for" the procreation of children? There is not one answer that could be given to such questions on a cross- cultural and historical evidence. Until recently at least, in modern Western society marriage has tended to be seen as a legal contract, surrounded by the epiphenomena of "love", connected with domestic partnership and raising children. Would then so called "Josephite" marriages, contracted with no intention of sexual intimacy, count as marriages for us? We have no ceremony or legal relationship, or at least not until very recently, where one could create a familial relationship with another person by adoption as a sibling. If we define marriage as a "rite which creates a family", and treat sexuality as a side issue, then rites such as the one I posted might indeed prove legitimate sources of inspiration for modern homosexuals, even though scholars need to keep clear distinctions more popular accounts will overlook. As a side note, one that I have not explored fully, I will note that John Meyendorff, my advisor until his death, in his book Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective [a popular rather than scholarly work] mentions that the legislation of Leo VI which remitted marriage law to the Church was also concerned with adoption of children. The focus was the creation of family bonds rather than sexual intimacy. The danger of the modern "theological opinion" approach, is seen in the assertion above that the "Orthodox Church has always condemned homosexuality as well as bestiality, pedophilia, adultery, and fornication". Well yes and no. In the modern West we would probably consider the sexual relationship of a 12 year old girl and an adult male "pedophilia", and deny strongly that a twelve-year old could give "consent" to such a relationship. But the law of both Latin and Greek churches allowed such relationships within marriage. Greek canon law [as in the Council in Trullo] and the almost universal opinion of the fathers condemned all second marriages [whether spouse no. one was dead or not]. In particular it is very difficult to show that canon law allowed a second marriage when the first spouse was still alive [my former colleague at Fordham, Carmen Hernandez, delivered several papers on this precise topic]. And yet, following the remission of marriage law to the Church, the Orthodox Church in practice began to allow such formerly condemned unions. Just because a Church claims it has "always done" something, we have no need to accept such a claim. With regard to Ed Pnarin's last paragraph. - Yes, the past was quite barbaric! Legal codes are not a very good source for discovering actual practice though. FROM: MICHAEL DIMAIO DIMAIOM@SALVE3.SALVE.EDU SUBJECT: GREEK ORTHODOX ADOPTION CEREMONY [certain names have been removed at Michael's request] I read your posting with a great deal of interest and also with a heavy heart because I am Orthodox. If the media were to get downwind of the service, God help the Church. At least you only posted the short service. In Slavonic the longer service exists which is a mirror image of a real Orthodox/Byzantine rite marriage service. The two services differ in one very major respect; while the heterosexual service abounds with references to fertility and human sexuality, the so-called marriage for men lacks this material. Several years ago a Richard S. was at Yale when a symposium on Homosexuality was being held; some person brought up the fact that the Orthodox Church had this service and that it was inconsistent with the church's traditional stance against homosexuality. Richard S. took this matter up subsequently with Fr. ****** ******* of **** ******** Church here in **; they both approached Fr. John Meyendorff of St. Vladmir's Seminary and Fordham. Meyendorff indicated that yes the church has always been against homosexuality, but that there was the service under discussion. At Meyendorff's guidance Fr. ******** obtained a book, in Russian, by a fellow named Nikolsky. The book dealt with repressed services in the Orthodox Church; in fact, the whole history of a service would be treated. Fr. ******** has a Xerox of the Nikolsky book. The Service was not intended to be a marriage service, although it may read like one. It is an adoption service to make sure property would stay in a family. According to Fr. ********, all the laws concerning family life in matters like this, the church was the legal agent of the state. Now, the service was apparently abused by people who used it to legitimize what some might perceive as abnormal relationships. My problem is that, if Fr. ********* is right, the gay lobby is certainly reading something into this service that was never intended to suit their own political agenda. In any case, Fr. ******* indicated to me that he would be more than willing to share any information that he has with you. FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU [In private email Michael DiMaio asked whether I felt the rites under discussion did indeed constitute homosexual marriages] My thoughts on the rites, from the evidence I have seen so far, are complex. I do not think the rites indicate a service which was thought of as a "marriage" [as Michael says above "marriage" usually indicates something to do with the procreation of children - although even that might not always have been insisted on]. But I do not think the that service has anything to do with "adoption" either. In other words, it is as much a mistake to conceive it as a modern "adoption", as a modern "marriage" - in adoption one person adopts another, two people do not adopt each other. This rite seeks to create a sanctified bi-lateral and equal relationship, which is more like our idea of marriage than our idea of adoption [which is bilateral but unequal]. I also think, and The Rudder seems to confirm this, that such rites were used to sanctify relationships which all participating parties - including the clergy - knew were, inter alia, sexual. Although later Orthodox commentators, such as Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain might protest that this was an "abuse", they also seem to indicate that it was an "abuse" known to all: one might equally say then, that earlier practitioners did not consider it an abuse. I think also, that those participating in the rite may have thought of it as a sacrament. As I understand Orthodoxy, "sacrament" has a far broader meaning than in the legalistic West: monastic profession, imperial ordination and so on, might also be considered sacraments. It is then, possible, that this rite was considered, to use Roman Catholic terminology, a *sacramental* analogous to marriage, but not identical to it. FROM: JOHN P RASH JPR18@COLUMBIA.EDU I was surely amongst the many grateful recipients of Paul Halsall's post on a gay marriage rite, though actually it seems to have been something different. I do not pretend to know much about marriage, since it has never been relevant to my life. But I immediately noted that one element essential to the contracting of marriage is omitted, and that is the exchange of vows. In Orthodoxy, as anciently in the West, this is the subject of a separate ceremony of betrothal. But the exchange of vows provides much of the texture of what we think of as marriage, in that there is a contractual process of blending lives involved. Since I do not think a betrothal of two members of the same sex is known in these texts, what we are delighted to call a gay "marriage" is actually nothing more than a blessing of friendship, a commodity of considerable value in its own right in the war-torn medieval period. Also, in Orthodox marriage rites, the couple are "crowned," and the text offered in the post makes no mention of crowning; perhaps some of Boswell's texts include this. Anyway, that's enough cold water on the subject. I'd like to hear comments refuting what I've just written. By the way there was a reference to an article by one Nicholas Zymaris. He is indeed elusive, at least electronically. I checked RLIN (nothing), the online portion of the SUNY Stony Brook library catalogue (nothing), and all of the relevant online periodical indices that I get through Columbianet, as well as Dissertation Abstracts online. All were nothing. Is the article to which reference is made typeset, does it have pagination other than its own self-paging? Or is it more likely to be the work of a student (graduate perhaps?) or adjunct faculty member, or someone else low on the totem pole? With more information, perhaps I can ferret this fellow out. FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU John Rash raises some interesting issues about the significance of the "union" text that was posted. See the information I already gave above on the sexual reading of such ceremonies by _The Rudder_. I have a few other points on what constitutes a marriage for the Orthodox. John Rash, very correctly, refers to vows and betrothal as essential in modern ideas of marriage. In the West of course, marriage was conceived of as a contract between two people - until 1917 for instance no priest was required for a valid Roman Catholic marriage, and even now a priest is only a witness to the marriage. In the East, however, it is the priest who performs the marriage, and his presence is required. Now, what, for the Byzantines, made a sacramental marriage? Leaving aside the whole inexact nature of "sacraments" in Orthodox theology [which is much less tied to a legalistic "seven"], we must note that, until the ninth century, marriage was contracted in a civil ceremony. From an early period a Christian couple partook of the Eucharist together [just like the male couple in the adelphopoiia ceremony] and this communion alone [no vows, no crowning] was - according to Tertullian - the Christian seal of marriage. From the fourth century, however, a specific ceremony of crowning was celebrated for *some* couples, during the Sunday liturgy. It was not required. The Epanagoge, a legal compilation probably written by the Patriarch Photios (d. 886) still offers three alternatives for Christians to conclude a marriage. The text states: "Marriage is an alliance between a husband and wife and their union for their entire life; it is accomplished by a blessing, or by a crowning, or by an agreement" (XVI,1). The development of a crowning rite separate from the marriage during the Eucharist came in the 10th century. At that time the Church was given [by the novels(laws) of Leo VI, d.912] the duty of validating all marriages. This meant in practice it had to validate marriages [such as second marriages, marriages after divorce] which it disapproved of, and had previously left up to the state. It was thus at this time that crowning and marriage ceremonies separate from the Eucharist became common [so that the Church would not have to give communion to those whose marriages it was required by law to recognize, but still did not approve of]. One group of people, however, still were allowed by the law to marry sacramentally, through the Eucharist and not by an - expensive - crowning ceremony. These were slaves, who were only required to by "crowned" by Alexios I Comnenos [1081-1118]. Thus the "normative", although not practiced, method of marriage remained through the Eucharist, and such rites were used, rather than a separate crowning rite, until the late 15th century. [All the above comes from John Meyendorff, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective, 3rd ed., (Crestwood, NY: 1984), 24-29] Seen in this light, it does make some sense to see the adelphopoiia ceremony as related to marriage. I also gather, by the way, that John Boswell has evidence that the crowning ceremony did take place between men! We will see. FROM: MICHAEL DiMAIO DIMAIOM@SALVE3.SALVE.EDU I do have some general thoughts. When one considers the biblical prohibitions against homosexual activity (I realize there have been those who have questioned them), I personally find it hard to believe that the "Church" would have turned looked the other way when it would come to such activity. Many of the fathers were clearly opposed to this type of sexual activity. The sin, as Fr ******* has indicated to me, is not the fact of being gay but the actual physical act. The service has to be looked at in its historical context. I cannot read Russian; I will have to rely on Fr. ******** for this. I have a feeling that the service may have been proposed for one purpose and used by others for another. That is, for the sakeof argument, it might be an adoption service which others(those who were gay) may have put to their own use. In any case, if this service was repressed, an attempt has to be made to determine why it was repressed. Was the service an abuse; did it cause scandal? I am not ready to tackle these questions. I want to review what material you have sent me and I want to look at my edition of the Rudder. I am also planning to consult a number of my ecclesiastical friends to review the evidence and then I will formulate an answer. This is an extremely complex issue. I intend to ultimately make my own judgement. Nickolsky is where I intend to start. FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU Michael DiMaio's point on the Biblical and Patristic evidence is well-taken, although there is no conciliar evidence at all, which gives one cause for thought. But, one must realise that the Bible has always been used as the reader wants: sex with a menstruating women [still condemned in Judaism, and perhaps in Orthdoxy {?}, and by all Western authorities until at least the 19th century, is now sometimes actually taught to Catholic couples as one aspect of using infertile periods for birth control!] is called an abomination, but is not really a big issue. Leviticus specifically condemns transvestitism, and yet there are over a dozen transvestite women saints in Orthodox calendars. With regard to current distinctions between "being gay" and the "actual physical act" -this may be something to take more bluntly. Many Jewish authorities read Leviticus to ban anal penetration. Other erotic activities are not covered. This may have been understood in Byzantium. The Greek of Leviticus and of Romans 1 talks of "arsenes" - ie "males" rather than "men"; it may have been common to read this as banning pederasty [the dominant model for same-sex intimacy in the Ancient Greco-Roman world]. In fact, and really going out on a limb here - the assimilation of the rite to brotherhood may have been because of the completely *unequal* nature of classical pederasty. As a matter of fact, btw, I do not think the fathers or anyone before modern psychology had the analytic tools to distinguish between orientation and action [although this is open to discussion] I agree that this is a very clear possibility that the rite was created for one purpose and used for another, although, bear in mind the objections to calling this rite an "adoption" I posted earlier. But it also seems that this {ab}use of the rite was widely known. [I think Boswell is going to try and prove, btw, that the crowning ceremony was used for *this* ceremony before marriage]. As to why it was repressed - this is an important question. Note that the service posted was a *Roman Catholic* service for Greeks in Southern Italy [at least Boswell has claimed that that was where he first found such rites]. The tendancy of ecclesiastics to read the present into the past is, however, extreme in my opinion. One need only look at the claims of the papacy to see that. FROM: MICHAEL DiMAIO DIMAIOM@SALVE3.SALVE.EDU SUBJECT: TWO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS ANONYMOUS 1 I am very skeptical of the various claims in these posts you sent me and I shall give my reasons, but keep in mind I have no real familiarity with the Orthodox Church, so if anything I say sounds disrespectful, it isn't meant to be. First: I am skeptical of this paper by this Zymaris fellow ... the fact that it cannot be found anywhere is the first reason. Are you aware of any, say, graduate journals put out by SUNY or any journals aimed, e.g., at the History of Homosexuality? I would be very interested to see what many of these claims are based on. Second: the notion of adelphopoiia. Someone claims to have done some checks in the TLG ... this might be worth checking out. My gut feeling is that this rite, if it is known by that name, is, in fact, a method of creating or confirming some officers in the church. I'd really like to know if, in fact, there is body and blood involved. Someone mentioned that there was legislation designed to prevent monks from undergoing this... I'd like references to such legislation. Actually, this is what bothers me the most ... there are many claims going on here, but no real citation of actual texts other than Goar and the like. It sounds to me that this rite has been found, seems to involve men, is close to a marriage, and so must be -- in my mind, only someone predisposed to find some justification for same sex marriage would make such a connection. Other considerations: - the ritual as prescribed seems to envisage a ceremony before a congregation; I think one would be hard pressed to find a community where such a rite would occur as a samesex union and would be tolerated - the ritual is neither a `marriage' as I understand it nor can it be construed as an `adoption' in the Roman or modern sense. But the notion of adelphopoiia, as seen in the few writers who were cited, seem to indicate an initiation into a brotherhood of some sort [but I've alluded to that above] - if the orthodox church did, in fact, have this rite of same sex marriage, it would be a major stumbling block to the reunification of Catholic and Orthodox churches ... whenever we hear of discussions, however, such things never come up. I know this is an argument e silentio, the sort of thing I hate, but I ahve a very hard time believing that such things can be covered up for so long. -I'm willing to bet that if Boswell comes out with his book, that it either does not contain anything about this or is soundly thrashed on the scholarly level ... he has already written a book on such things ... it came out in 1980 or so (it might be worth checking out to see if he mentions it). I haven't seen it, but if it is anything like his work on child abandonment, it will be frustrating for many scholars ... he doesn't evaluate evidence well ... he gets his hands on most of it, but often seems to ignore things which don't agree with what he wants to say. At times he seems to me to be lacking a critical mind. Actually, if this work exists, and if he approaches it like he did his work on child abandonment, he will have published a good chunk of it as articles already ... it might be worth tracking down. -other things I'd like to have someone check: references to Sergius and Bacchus as friends or lovers ... I'd like to know which word is used and at what period it is used ... I'd also like to check this assumption that two men or women are involved ... is it only two? or is it a ritual involving many more people who proceed in pairs down an aisle? All in all, my own interpretation is that you have a genuine ritual for induction into a holy order vel sim. which at some point -- perhaps long ago -- someone may have used for a same sex marriage. I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't so long ago. An afterthought: boswell is said to have a hundred examples of this ... where are they from? The church register? Is it likely that a priest would record such things if they were, in fact, being used to give divine sanction to something which was contrary to the teachings of the church? As a postscript: I've argued with others before about homosexuality in antiquity ... there is a wide assumption, and one which is furthered by modern less than scholarly types that such activities were rampant. When pressed for evidence, however, it is generally found lacking. There is usually just a single book which they are cribbing things from (an article by Zymaris, perhaps) and when pressed, the arguments in such sources generally breaks down rather quickly. [by the way, the same technique works with Afrocentrists, Feminists, and pretty much any other activist type `scholarship' ... press them for evidence ... demand page numbers and references ... generally it will come down to someone somewhere reading something into something which isn't there or just reading something which has no basis] ANONYMOUS 2 Subj: Re: Deconstructionist Ecclesiastical History? Do not have time to examine Greek "gay marriage" document in detail, but it loo ks to me that a tendentious interpretation is being put on a "spiritual brother hood" monastic rite. The orthodox church abjures, despises and anathematizes homosexuality. IS THE WORD "ERASTES" USED ANYWHERE? FROM: MICHAEL DiMAIO DIMAIOM@SALVE3.SALVE.EDU SUBJECT: ROMAN LAW ON ADELPHOPOIIA? Paul, The long piece you sent me was quite interesting; I found the following passage to be especially sO: The prohibitions against brother-adoption are found in Roman Imperial law as early as 285, when an edict denounces the practice as inconceivable and denies it any effect in inheritance. The edict is reiterated and qualified several times, but apparently in the face of persistent practice. So that by the 11th century the practice is admitted, but with the cost of a marriage impediment in various degrees. One source prohibits marriage between those men and women who have entered into fraternal adoption with each other. Another source extends this to the children of persons who are united by fraternal adoption. Yet another source treats the adoption as constituting the same impediments as the physical relation of parenthood. Patlagean suggests some associations to the rite, two of which are particularly interesting. She reminds us first that the language of brotherhood was used for male-male erotic relations in Roman usage (as in the Satyricon). She also points to the use of the rite of adelphopoiia as a liturgical surrogate for pre-Christian Slavic rites of brotherhood that were signified by the exchange of blood. One of my correspondents asked me to pass this on: Please, for the sake of my own sanity, ask Mr. Halsall where this edict of 285 is and where it is repeated. I know of such edicts and, in any event, am 100% positive that the brother adoption mentioned in such edicts has nothing to do with the ceremony under discussion. This individual is into Roman/Byzantine law. Do you have a copy of this edict or is it printed in the article referenced. Mr. Jordan might have the information. Ask him for it. It would go a long way to explaining Nicodemus' comments. The latin text would be best. FROM: DAVID MEADOWS G8926133@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA SUBJECT: I FOUND IT Thank god for my sanity I came across the rescriptum -- not an edict -- which seems to be the one in question: Impp. Diocletianus et Maximianus AA. Zizoni. Nec apud peregrinos fratrem sibi quisquam per adoptionem facere poterat. cum igitur, quod patrem tuum voluisse facere dicis, irritum sit, portionem hereditatis, quam is adversus quem supplicas velut adoptatus frater heres institutus tenet, restitui tibi curae habebit praeses provinciae. PP. iii non. Dec. Diocletiano ii et Aristobulo conss. What we have is a fine example of something being read into something which simply isn't there. This does not say that brother adoption is illegal. What it is saying is that an adoption which created a brother, but which was done in some foreign jurisdiction (perhaps Palmyra) has no validity in Roman law. It says nothing about *how* the adoption was carried out -- for all we know, it might have been done by Zizo's grandfather. What needs to be recognized is that adoptio or arrogatio in Roman law ... at least until the sixth century, was solely concerned with putting people in the potestas of another. As such, it could only happen in a father-son or grandfather-grandson (or daughter) situation. Exceptionally, this might have variations --- there is a case involving a woman who wanted to adopt her stepson who received special permission from the emperor. There is no such permission for creation of a brother by a brother. To return to the above case, what has happened is that Zizo has been passed over as heir in his father's will and the `brother' was instituted heir instead -- this is contrary to centuries old inheritance practices among the Romans. Zizo has written in likely to bolster his case in a querella de inofficiosi testamenti. FROM: DAVID MEADOWS G8926133@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO MACCRIDES AND PATLAGEAN ARTICLES I have finally worked my way through these and now can comment properly. To deal with R.J. Macrides, "Kinship by Arrangement: The Case of Adoption" Dumbarton Oaks Papers (1990) 109-118 first: The focus of Macrides' paper is adoption in Byzantine society, but he mentions in passing the other ways which kinship might be created, among them, adelphopoiia. On 110 he says, "As a form of ritualized friendship, adelphopoiia functined in a way similar to the tie between a godparent and the natural parent of a child (coparents, sunteknoi). Both kinds of ritual kinship could carry with them the obligation of mutual help and support and were based on friendship or the hope of it. Both provided a means of access to and intimacy with persons of the opposite sex, and adelphopoiia was also a tie that could ritually unite people with homosexual relations". The reference for this last point is to an article of Boswell (unavailable to me) and includes these comments "Although I think John Boswell goes too far in call the ritual for "spiritual brotherhood' "basically a gay marriage ceremony for the Greek church," the church's strong denunciation of adelphopoiia could be read as an indication that both heterosexual and homosexual couples were, in its view, abusing the tie. See J. Boswell, "Rediscovering Gay History: Archetypes of Gay Love in Christian History, " Michael Harding Memorial Address (London, 1982; repr. 1985) 5-21. " The references to condemnation by the church apparently come from "the statements of the Patriarch Athanasios I, in two unpublished Didaskaliai, where he describes adelphopoiia as `a deed/source' of `licentiousness' and `perversity' [V. Laurent, Les regestes des actes du patriarchat de Constantinople, I, 4 (Paris, 1971), no. 1762, p. 541; no. 1777, p. 554]. So Macrides seems to be suggesting that it was used by homosexuals for reasons other than those sanctioned by the church. Turning to E. Patlagean, "Christianisation et parentes rituelles: Le domaine de Byzance," Annales ESC 33 (1978) 625-636 (reprinted in Structure sociale, famille, Chretienite a Byzance, (London, 1981), I shall confine my comments to legal citations which she would use to take these back to Roman Imperial times. "En 285 deja un rescript imperial declare inconcevable l'adoption en frere, et nuls par consequent ses effects patrimoniaux". This is, in effect, true but it misses the point of the rescript which runs as follows: (CJustinianus 6.24.7): Impp Diocletianus et Maximianus AA. Zizoni. Nec apud peregrinos fratrem sibi quisquam per adoptionem facere poterat. cum igitur, quod patrem tuum voluisse facere dicis, irritum sit, portionem hereditatis, quam is adversus quem supplicas velut adoptatus frater heres institutus tenet, restitui tibi curae habebit praeses provinciae. PP. iii non. Dec. Diocletiano ii et Aristobulo conss. My comments on this the other night were somewhat out of whack. First of all, it is important to recognize that there was no such thing as brother adoption in the Roman Empire which would be recognized by Roman law. In general, adoption (by adoptio or arrogatio) was a process by which someone entered, either voluntarily or at the command of their paterfamilias, the potestas of another person who would be their new paterfamilias. That is, adoption in a Roman context always created a father-son or grandfather-grandson relationship (or daughters). There is one case where a stepmother, by imperial rescript, has been given permission to adopt her stepson, but that is an exceptional case; there are no cases granting such power to create a brother. That being the case, we have to wonder in the above rescript to whom the brother belongs. The assumption by Patlagean (and I would presume others who don't have a specialization in Roman Law) is that the father has adopted a brother for himself, which is certainly the impression one gets from the first line. From the second long, however (quam is adversus quem supplicas velut adoptatus frater ...) we might get the impression that this is the adoptive brother of Zizo. That is, what has happened is that Zizo's father has adopted another son -- a brother for Zizo -- but in a foreign jurisdiction (apud peregrinos). Because it is apud peregrinos, the adoption isn't recognized at law and so the adopted son, who was instituted as heir, is now going to face a contest for the will. It is worth pointing out that the emperors don't simply say `brother adoption' (i.e. adelphopoiia) is illegal even though at other times they make such pronouncements in relation to Greek practices (e.g. apokeryxis). The importnat thing is that this case occurred apud peregrinos. Next, we ought to deal with the declaration from the Digest (28.5.59(58).1 ... not 28.5.58(56).1 as Patlagean suggests): Paul, Vitellius: ... Qui frater non est, si fraterna caritate diligitur, recte cum nomine suo sub appellatione fratris heres instituitur. This text, described as `plus ambigu' by P. really has nothing to do with adelphopoiia. All it says is "if someone was loved with brotherly affection, rightly can he be instituted as heir with his name under the title brother". This is just one of numerous examples in the Digest where the wording of a will might have been used to overturn it: picture the following situation ... two men who are great friends ... perhaps even christian. One dies, leaving his friend as his heir in the following words "Let my brother Gaius be my heir." The deceased's family gets all uppity and says, "Ecce, he doesn't have a brother named Gaius". At one time, such a will might have been overturned in court. Juristic interpretation changed that. There is nothing here to do with adelphopoiia. Also within my purview is the citation from the so-called `Livre de droit syro-romain' (FIRA2 vol. II p. 780 sec. 86). What this is is a legal text made in Mesopotamia sometime in the 8th century. It is a syriac translation of a greek original which has now been rendered into Latin for inclusion in FIRA (so we have many opportunities for problems). Something which is useful, however, is that the syriac seems to have simply transliterated the greek special terms and the editor has conveniently left those in where appropriate (e.g. nomos, taxei, etc). And so we can look at this translation into Latin: 86. Si velit vir scribere fraternittem cum viro altero, ut tamquam fratres sint et omne quod possident vel possidebunt eorum sit aequaliter, prohibet eos nomos [in greek characters] et non ratum est id quod invicem scripserunt; non enim uxores eorum sunt communes neque liberi eorum possunt esse communes. In a note, the editor glosses fraternitatem as "id est adelphopoiia", but I am skeptical because according to his transliteration practices, adelphopoiia was not in the syriac text. But P. takes the editor's word for it. It likely has nothing to do with adelphopoiia. In the section before this, what is being discussed sounds very much like a discussion of partnership (in latin, societas) and it sounds very much like a gloss on Digest 17.2.1 or something similar (Paul, Edict: In societate omnium bonorum omnes res quae coenutium sunt continuo communicantur). On the other hand, it might simply reflect some change in the law which has occurred by the eighth century. As such, I feel if people are looking for some antiquity of legal sanctions against adelphopoiia, they should look beyond the early sixth century (i.e. post Justinian) and perhaps even beyond the eighth-century date of the syriac text. Roman law simply did not recognize such unions. COMMENT: FROM PAUL HALSALL David Meadow's discussion of Roman law is interesting - but all it actually goes to show is that St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain was incorrect to cit it as banning adelphopoiia in the _Pedalion_. FROM: MICHAEL DiMAIO DIMAIOM@SALVE3.SALVE.EDU SUBJECT: BOSWELL I have heard that Boswell reads things into evidence which may not be there. If that law which I sent you earlier is the decree of 285 which was referenced by mark Jordan, than indeed too much is being read into the evidence. If Boswell can make a good case, then let the chips fall where they may. His case will have to really be strong on fact and not gay rhetoric. A case in point. A decade agao Morton Smith published a document which purported to be a secret gospel of Mark preserved in the hand of Clement of Alexandria; unfortunately it was in an 18 century Greek hand. His scholarship seemed good to me; but the theory and document seemed to have disappeared into a black hole. I am wandering. My point is that if he can build a case, let him do it with 19th century Germanic scholarship. Specifically, he should not go beyond what the evidence actually says. If you are saying what I think you are saying, there will be some red faces including mine.:) My motivation in my discussion with you is simple and will probably sound naive. I know that in the church east and west individual men and women may have evil(St. Cyril of Alexandria, for example); that does not mean that the whole institution is rotten to the core. I also know that people in the service of the church over the centuries have exhibited hypocracy. Yet, if there are indeed biblical condemnations against homosexuality(I know there are those who would deny this), it would take a great deal of hypocracy for an institution like the church(east or west) to say one thing in public and do another thing in private. I, in short, would like to believe my church's rhetoric. I have tried and will continue to try balance some of the inflammatory rhetoric that I have seen pop up on this matter. You are, in light of the comments I've seen in our dialogue, a moderate, or you at least appear to be. Obviously, you and i do not agree on all matters. I think we do agree on the fact that the truth must win here rather than rhetoric. If it means the church gets a black eye so be it; or for that matter, if the adelphopoiia is what I think it is, then the gay lobby should win out. I hope Boswell is concerned with the truth rather rhetoric. FROM: MARK D. JORDAN MEDPHI%IRISHMVS.BITNET@KSUVM.KSU.EDU> SUBJECT: "SPIRITUAL BROTHERHOOD" Further notes and queries in the ongoing pursuit of a context for the Byzantine rite of adelphopoiia. (1) There are 2 mentions of fraternal adoption in Imperial legal collections that I have run across: Codex Justinianus 6.24.7 (ed. Krueger in Corpus Iuris Civilis, 1888, 2:257b), which prohibits the practice; and the Digest 28.5.59(58) (ed. Mommsen CIC 1:385), which accepts it. The quickest survey of reference works suggests that the origin of the custom of fraternal adoption was Eastern. See e.g. Kaser, Romische Privatrecht, Munich 1959, 148, note 25. (2) There are three fascinating essays ("dissertations") byDu Cange on medieval mentions of fraternal adoption, brotherhood in arms, and their rites. Originally attached to his edition of edition of the life of St. Louis, they are reprinted at the end of the Glossarium with separate pagination. There is much here, including a number of instances of fraternal adoption sealed by drinking one another's blood or by touching one another's weapons (sic). But the most curious rite involves taking the person to be adopted under one's clothing against the skin (Du Cange, 72a). Here are the accounts (as Du Cange reproduces them) from Albert of Aix and Guibert of Nogent. Albert: "Balduinum sibi filium adoptivum fecit, sicut mos regionis illius et gentis habetur, nudo pectori suo illum astringens, et sub proximo carnis suae indumento semel hunc investiens, fide utrimque data et accepta." Guibert: "Adoptationis autem talis pro gentis consuetudine dicitur fuisse modus. Intra lineam interulam, quam nos vocamus camisiam, nudum intrare eum faciens sibi astrinxit: et haec omnia osculo libato firmavit." But lest one gasp at so patently homoerotic a rite, note what follows: "Idem et mulier postmodum fecit." Note too that both accounts identify the rite as that of non-Christians--"mos..gentis," "pro gentis consuetudine." Raising again the possibility that the Byzantine rite is an attempt to coopt or regularize a pre-Christian practice. (3) It also occurred to me--what was probably obvious to the social historians among us--that the notion of "spiritual brotherhood" has an entirely different sense: the spiritual kinship created by baptismal sponsorship. So that the children of baptismal sponsors were impeded from marrying those who had been sponsored. Or, in the East, so that the children of priests were prohibited from marrying those who had been baptized by their father. On all of which see, inter alia, Joseph Lynch's Godparents and Kinship in Early Medieval Europe (Princeton 1986), pp. 202- 203, 240-241. Apologies for indulging bibliographic obsessions in public. FROM: MICHAEL DiMAIO DIMAIOM@SALVE3.SALVE.EDU SUBJ:THE INFAMOUS ADELPHOPOIIA SERVICE [posted under various title. The "infamous" was for the version posted to the "ORTHODOX" list] Almost a week ago Professor Paul Halsall posted a text of a Eastern Orthodox service of adelphopoiia which has fallen into dissuse in the Greek and Russian Churches over the last several centuries; although this service is said to be an adoption service by the Eastern Church, Professor Halsall and others have argued that this might be a gay "marriage" service. In reality, Mr. Halsall says that the service fall between a marriage and adoption service. It is, to use his language, sui generis. I am a Classicist/ Byzantinist; for this reason, although I find it hard to believe that the church would hypocrtically sanction such a service for a homosexual marriage in light of the biblical sanctions against it, i believe Professor Halsall's theory has to be looked at from a scholarly perspective and he is entitled to a fair hearing. This is especially true in light of the fact that John Boswell's new book, if the rumors I have been hearing are correct, makes a strong case for a single sex marriage service. I reserve my judgement until I have read Boswell's book. What seems to be available on this service in English is minimal, although Halsall refers his readers to an intriguing entry in the _Pedalion_ in which St. Nicodemus Hagiriotes says that the adelphopoiia service had apparently been abused by some individuals in a sexual manner. (The Rudder. Westbrookfield, 1983, p. 997). Perhaps some homosexuals took advantage of the service for their own use. In any case, many of the answers about the history of this service may be buried in an obscure work on forbidden Orthodox services by a a writer named Nikolsky. This work was published at the turn of the century; because I have only received a copy of the work today, I have been unable to examine it in any detail. Most of this week I have engaged in scholarly discourse with Professors Halsall and Mark Shaw at Notre Dame University on this topic. I must thank Professor Shaw for providing me with citations in Roman Law which might apply to this adelphopoiia service. Because I am no expert on the minutia of Roman law, I placed the material in the capable hands of Mr. David Meadows of McMaster University. His capable and detailed commentary follows. Please read and make your own judgement. A final cautionary note; it has come to my attention that some of my Orthodox brethren, from various quarters, have engaged in questionable behavior by writing what might be described as hate mail to some of the parties involved in this discussion. This is not appropriate behavior for the net and certainly not the mark of a true Orthodox Christian. This issue has to be evaluated on its merits; if Halsall and Boswell are correct, than we will have to learn to live with it. I for one hope that this theory is wrong, but it should be dealt with in a scholarly manner and in an professional fashion. FROM: VALERIA SAJEZ [ATTACHED TO THE PREVIOUS ARTICEL BY MICHAEL DI MAIO] SV#1%LAFAYACS.BITNET@LAFIBM.LAFAYETTE.EDU SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON SLAVIC FORM OF SERVICE The service was known to the Slavs very early. It was included in a Glacolitic Evlogion of the XI century; then appeares in a handwritten Trebnik (Bk of Needs) at the end of XVI century. In Russia "Bratotvorenie" was combined with the national spirit, in other words the culture. Apparently, this custom was awonderful excuse to have a PARTY. The cup from which both drank was called the "bratin". Note: brat=brother. At the conclusion of the service the newly made brothers exchanged neck crosses. To terminate their friendship the crosses were returned with the words, "The brother is not my brother, so return my cross ( I. Snigirev, Russians and their proverbs [inRussian], 1831, bk 2, pp.72,73) The brother-unity was made (with the particpation of clergy) even between rulers of nations. Metropolitan John presided in 1450 over the brotherly union of the Polish King Kazimir IV and the Grand Prince Vasilii Vasil'evich. Also, the service itself was performed in several variations. There was a long and short form. Such a service can be found in the Trebnik of the late XIV early XV c located in the Moscow Synodal library, No. 371. Goar had included only one of the two prayers used in the the service (Nevostruev. Opisanie Rukpisij Moskovskj Sinodal'noj Biblioteki, Section III, p.145 ) The article continues to speak of the changes that occured in the Trebni k w/time. Readings from the Apostles included 1 Cor. 12, 27, 13:8 and from John 17:18-26. Then we get into books printed in 1625,1633, 1636,1651. It seems that during the services the "Brothers" SOMETIMES received the Presanctified gifts; depending upon which text was used. Some Trbniks excluded this altogether. According to the article "the rite itself did not represent anything that would have required its prohibition." The church just blessed a friendship. The article states "the reason for forbiding the rite of bratotvorenie was that the rite became a medium, a route,to performing various forbidden things. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS REFERS TO HOMOSEXUALITY It seems that clergy had a problem with the service and what one could interpret it to mean. (Sound like what we're in the middle of? Clergy argued that the rite was too close to that of the marriage service. Seems that there was confusion among the masses as to whether the same rights were extended to a brother as to a spouse. In other words, upon one brother's death was the brother entitled to an inheritance? Was he a legal heir to the family fortune? Apparently, the immediate family did not think so. Looks like this led to all sorts of fights, arguments inside and outside the Church and even murders. Family members get rid of the "Brother". You have the actual text of prohibition. "Any cleric who performed such a service would be temporarily suspended." It is emphasised that bratotvorenie is NOT synonomous with adaption or a spouse. This is a quick summary up to p. 379 of the article. FROM: PAUL HALSALL SUBJECT: RE: ADELPHOPOIIA DETHRONED [COMMENTS ON POSTS BY MICHAEL DIMAIO AND VAL SAJEZ] Michael De Maio writes "It is with a great deal of pleasure that I bring this progress report to various lists and readers on the net; a week ago an old argument, which had been started almost a decade ago by research carried out by John Boswell of Yale, was brought to fore again by the posting of what was said to be Greek Orthodox "Gay Marriage Service" by Professor Paul Halsall et al. on various lists all over the network. Halsall adduced evidence to support his thesis that had to be addressed. Earlier this week Mr. David Meadows of McMaster University addressed the Roman laws that had been adduced to support Halsall's and Boswell's thesis. In my mind, Meadows showed that the laws adduced by Professor Mark Jordan of Notre Dame to support the contention advanced by Professor Halsall left something to be desired." COMMENT: This is not very accurate, Michael, in a number of respects. First, I posted [and had forwarded without my knowledge to other lists] a summary of a discussion about a text printed in Goar's Euchologion. Antony Frank thought it was a sort of gay marriage service, I thought it was something distinct and Mark Jordon thought it was an entirely other rite. No Roman laws were adduced by me or Franks on the issue: Mark Jordan was making another point with them altogether. Professor Boswell's views were not given. Franks gave a translation from Goar's Euchologion, and I mentioned and cited *one* text from the _Pedalion_ which would seem to support the interpretation that Franks gave. Both Goar, and especially the _Pedalion_ are not, by themselves particularly reliable. "In my report you at that time,I indicated that i had just obtained a segment of work published in Russia at the turn of the century by a fellow named Nikolsky which dealt with various services which had fallen out of use in the Russian Church. The work contains, as far as I know, the only scholarly church sanctioned historical treatment of the Adelphopoiia Service. I owe a great debt to Professor Valeria Sajez of Lafayette College who not only obtained a copy of Nikolsky, but also summarized the work for my use. Tommorrow the text of Nikolsky will be forwarded to a number of reseachers and Russian language experts who will prepare a full and detailed translation ofthe material. As soon as it is ready, it will be posted to the net. This summary should do much to allay the concerns that many of the laity had when it was learned of Halsall's thesis. We now know what was the reason for the service and why it was abolished. I do not want to steal Professor Sajez's thunder. I would ask that you read her comments closely and realize that the Orthodox Church acted in good faith(pace the views of Professors Boswell and Halsall)". COMMENT: First of all, I do not have a thesis. I specifically a repeatedly indicated that more evidence was needed, and was indeed due out shortly in a book to be published in June by Villard, John Boswell _Same-Sex Unions in PreModern Europe_. Now let me say that both Franks and I have recieved large amounta of hate mail over this posting, and I have publically been called a liar on at least one large list [Orthodox - which is closed to responses]. Thus I feel very little resistence in saying that much of what has been going on to "save the Orthodox" position has nothing to do with scholarship, is based on extremely partial examination of recent *printed* evidence, and, given that none of the people cited have read Boswell's book, does not speak well of scholarly motivations. No-one, Boswell, myself or Franks [and please not the disparity there: Franks and I are interested in the topic but not researchers in the field, Boswell has just devoted 12 years to this topic] have attacked either the modern Orthodox Churches or any earlier activity of Orthodox churches. The whole idea that the truth shall be found in some "church-sanctioned" work is, in fact, almost beyond my comprehension as someone who works in the field of academic history. "We all should remember that the thesis advanced by Professor Halsall is exactly that. It has yet to be proven or disproven. The material presented by Nikolsky, however, is to be considered the part of the actual historical record. What Professor Sajez presents us with is very brief; I look forward to my final report where I hopefully will be able to present the full text of Nikolsky for your consideration." COMMENT: Since the texts cited by Frank were from the 17th century, and by me from the 18th century, and Boswell has OVER 70 manuscripts from the 9th to the 16th century, a book published in Russian and the end of the 19th century is interesting, but not exactly determinative. Now, frankly, I find the historical imagination at work here to be deficient in the extreme. "(From Sajez) `Just a few comments about the article I sent you. I took a quick glance >at it late last night. The service was known to the Slavs very early. It was included in a Glacolitic Evlogion of the XI century; then appeares in a handwritten Trebnik (Bk of Needs) at the end of XVI century. In Russia "Bratotvorenie" was combined with the national spirit, in other words the culture. Apparently, this custom was awonderful excuse to have a PARTY. The cup from which both drank was called the "bratin". Note: brat=brother." COMMENT: Actually the service in Slavonic had several names. 'Bratrovtvorenie" was a rather late one. The word "brother" is a major issue in translating these texts, of course. Let us merely note, at this time, that "brother" and "sister" were used of erotic relations in Rome and Late antiquity, and are so used in the Song of Songs. "Brotherhood", by contrast, virtually *never* refers, in the languages under consideration, and in English, to "the relationship between two biological brothers" - think about it! The meaning of these words is a major debating point: the *addition* of the word "adoptive" by translators such as Goar and Frcek shows rather serious determination to misunderstand the documents in question. "At the conclusion of the service the newly made brothers exchanged neck crosses. To terminate their friendship the crosses were returned with the words, "The brother is not my brother, so return my cross ( I. Snigirev, Russians and their proverbs [inRussian], 1831, bk 2, pp.72,73)" COMMENT: The 11th century Sinai Glagolithic Euchologion specifically states that it is for a "lifelong love", and repeatedly refers to the permanence of the relationship. Now I would like to have explained, in detail, exactly what historical methodology is being used to explain an 11th century manuscript, from Macedonia, in terms of folk customs of Russians in 1831. Perhaps this will count as "church sanctioned" scholarship. I rather hope not. "The brother-unity was made (with the particpation of clergy) even between rulers of nations. Metropolitan John presided in 1450 over the brotherly union of the Polish King Kazimir IV and the Grand Prince Vasilii Vasil'evich. Also, the service itself was performed in several variations. There was a long and short form. Such a service can be found in the Trebnik of the late XIV early XV c located in the Moscow Synodal library, No. 371. Goar had included only one of the two prayers used in the the service (Nevostruev. Opisanie Rukpisij Moskovskj Sinodal'noj Biblioteki, Section III, p.145 ) The article continues to speak of the changes that occured in the Trebnik w/time. Readings from the Apostles included 1 Cor. 12, 27, 13:8 and from John 17:18-26. Then we get into books printed in 1625,1633, 1636,1651. >It seems that during the services the "Brothers" SOMETIMES received the Presanctified gifts; depending upon which text was used. Some Trbniks excluded this altogether. According to the article "the rite itself did not represent anything that would have required its prohibition." The church just blessed a friendship." COMMENT: Both authors cited here seem to have a rather unreflective notion of "friendship". But that goes along with a persistently anachronistic understanding of Church history in general, in my opinion. "Freindship" has become a major area of discussion in recent historical writing [see Margaret Mullet's article "Byzantium: A Friendly Society" in _Past and Present_, about 7 years ago I think.] "The article states "the reason for forbiding the rite of bratotvorenie was that the rite became a medium, a route,to performing various forbidden things. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS REFERS TO HOMOSEXUALITY It seems that clergy had a problem with the service and what one could interpret it to mean. (Sound like what we're in the middle of? Clergy argued that the rite was too close to that of the marriage service. COMMENT: Really? "Seems that there was confusion among the masses as to whether the same rights were extended to a brother as to a spouse. In other words, upon one brother's death was the brother entitled to an inheritance? Was he a legal heir to the family fortune? Apparently, the immediate family did not think so. Looks like this led to all sorts of fights, arguments inside and outside the Church and even murders. Family members get rid of the "Brother". You have the actual text of prohibition. "Any cleric who performed such a service would be temporarilysuspended." It is emphasised that bratotvorenie is NOT synonomouswith adaption or a spouse." FROM: MICHAEL DiMAIO DIMAIOM@SALVE3.SALVE.EDU IN RESPONSE TO ABOVE COMMENTS SUBJ:ADELPHOPOIIA DISCUSSION PUT OFF Two days ago I posted to this list, amomg others, a cover letter and material that related to infamous adelphopoiia service that used to be practiced by the Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. Specifically, I provided a brief summary of material on the service from a Russian tome by Nikolsky. Professor Paul Halsall reacted to my comments with a great deal of vim and vigor; with perhaps more vigor, I fear, than my comments were worth. In light of Professor Halsall's comments and some discussions that I have subsequently had with others interested in this material, I direct the following missive to Professor Halsall: Paul, I read your comments on my posting with a great deal of interest. I will admit for the record that your description of the events leading up my posting of the material is absolutely on the mark; for the sake of space, I think that I condensed the sequence of events and it distorted the views of those individuals involved in the debate on this topic. With this being said, this debate seems to be turning into a shouting match rather than a real scholarly debate on the issue at hand. True, more evidence has to be adduced before the matter can be resolved. The posting of the summary of the Nikolsky material, at least in my opinion, gave us some idea what was going on in relation to the obscure service under discussion and the church's method of dealing with the problems that it presented. It would appear to me, at any rate, that you were not as much concerned with any data that was in the Nikolsky text that might help facilitate the discussion as with denigrating its value because of the age of the material and the fact that it seems to have an ecclesiastical origin. You certainly raised questions about some of his sources and his methodology. You kept referring to the forthcoming publication of Boswell's work and seemed to imply that Mr. Boswell's work will be everthing that the Nikolsky text is not. Unfortunately, however, Nikolsky's text iwould appear to be the most detailed source on the adelphopoiia service currently availabe. A number of us are doing as much as we can to get the material translated and posted to the net as fast as we can. The first step was the posting of Professor Sajez's summary to a number of different lists. It seems to me that you have an advantage in the present discussion because you are the only one who seems to have access to Boswell's book at this point in time. For this reason, it is impossible to get into a real discussion of the book or its actual contents. Although you can talk about the ideas of Boswell contained in the work, everyone else can only respond to what material you or Boswell release to them. For a truely free and unfettered discussion of the material under consideration (and weighty matters are at issue), all parties have to have access to all the available evidence. Since this will not be possible until after the publication of Boswell's book in June, I propose that we put off the remainder of our ongoing discussion until such time as Boswell's book is available to all those interested in a fair and detailed analysis of the adelphopoiia service and the issues raised by it. I wish to affirm the fact, however, that as soon as Nickolsky is fully translated, no matter what the contents, the text will not be embargoed and it will be released to the net at large. FROM: MARGARET MCKIBBEN [VIA MICHAEL DI MAIO] MMCK@SEACCD.CTC.EDU SUBJECT: BRATOTVORENIE Re: Nikolsky -- I figured that document had gone through a fax machine before you saw it -- makes the USPS look pretty good. Here's something I could translate in full: it's the entry under bratotvorenie in the Pravoslavnaia Bogoslovskaia Entsiklopediia (Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia) (2nd edition) published in St. Petersburg in 1903 (well, it was actually Petrograd then) under the editorship of Aleksandr Pavlovich Lopukhin, Master of Theology and professor at the St. Petersburg spiritual academy. The book was published with the approval of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Central Committee, senior censor Archmandrite Antonin. Sufficiently Orthodox, yes? The entry reads as follows: BRATOTVORENIE (fraternitas per adoptionen, adelphopoiia) -- a particular act, existing among practically all Indo-European peoples, by which two unrelated persons voluntarily conclude between themselves a brotherly bond. A special prayer (molitva) found in ancient Books of Needs (trebniki) was even composed to sanctify this bond. The rite (chin) of bratotvorenie is found in Goar's Euchologion published in Paris, p.898-902; the slavonic text from a Potrebnik of the 16th century at the Sophia library was published by professor M.I. Gorchakov in his book "On the sacrament of marriage", appendix p.4 ff. It was not recognized by Russian civil law and had no legal consequences, and in the Rudder (Kormchaia Kniga) we find a proscription against this ritual. Russian byliny mention "enbrothering" (pobratimstvo), by means of which Russian heroes vowed to each other "to be brothers, more than brothers born" and, as a sign of this moral bond, exchanged neck crosses. This was called either "brotherhood" (bratstvo) or "holy enbrothering" (krestnoe pobratimstvo). The article was written by one Nikolai Fedorovich Markov, identified as a candidate in the department of law at St.Pbg University, assistant judicial consultant to the Holy Synod. Instead of "enbrothering" you could say "fraternization", I suppose. "Enbrothering" keeps the earthy feel of the original, and doesn't bring up echoes of phrases like "fraternizing with the enemy". FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU SUBJECT: MORE ON ADELPHOPOIIA Two more references to adelphopoiia that I have come across, one directly comparing it to marriage. 1. In the _Life of St. Mary the Younger_, #2, Mary's brother Vardas and a local drungarious "form a bond" [sundesmos] "of intimacy". There is no description of a service. To add "bonds of kinship" to the already existing bond, Vardas suggests that the drungarius marries Mary, which he does [and they have four children before he beats her to death]. Note, "Sundesmos" is the term Boswell thinks can describe a same- sex union. It means, perhaps, "strong bond" and is used, for instance, about the bond between Sergius and Bacchus. It is also the word translated as "sodomite" in II Kings in the KJV. I am not sure what to make of this episode. When I suggested a few years ago that it might mark some same-sex relationship, Alice Mary Talbot thought that there was no reason to so regard it. Now I am less sure she is correct. OTOH, Vardas' friend does marry and beget children [which means nothing as regards sexuality, but does suggest that non-physical intimacy was the issue here. 2. In his letter to Nicholas, Disciple, [Migne PG. 99 941C] St. Theodore of Studium gives advice to Nicholas, a new abbot. Here is the Greek: "Ou' schoie:s meta kosmiko:n adelphopoiias, e: sunteknias, ho phugas tou kosmon kai tou gamou. Ou' gar heure:tai en tois Patrasin : ei de kai heure:tai, spaniakis kai touto ou nomos" Rough translation [based on my memories of that given by Peter Hatlie in his dissertation on Theodore, from whence I got this reference] Do not form "adelphopoiias" or "co-parenting" relationships with men who live in the world, for you have left behind the world and marriage. You will not find it among the fathers, or if you do find it it is infrequent [?] and not law [again ?]. The passage seems to show no great animosity to adelphopoiia, which clearly did exist, and also that such relationships could be formed outside monasteries. What I find interesting is the idea that adelphopoiia was inappropraite because the monk had fled the world and marriage. This *does not* show that adelphopoiia was considered a functional equivalent of marriage, but it does show, I think, that it was consider in the same mental space as marriage. One could argue that the "world" refers to "adelphopoiia" and "marriage" to "sunteknia", but I do not think that is correct, given Theodore's apparent conflation in the second sentance. [SOME HISTORIOGRAPHICAL DISCUSSIONS] FROM: JONATHAN DE JONGO JONDEJON@FALCON.CC.UKANS.EDU Medieval History SUBJECT: RE: HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE RITE? - TEXT AND DISCUSSION One comment before I, for one, begin deleting without reading all messages regarding this subject. Admittedly, I am fairly new to historical studies, but one thing bothers me about this entire discussion: Is it better, as historians, to approach our studies as subjects or objects? Historian "A" 1. Studies orthodox religious rites, 2. Discovers an interesting but obscure rite, 3. Studies that rite in all of its historical context, AND 4. From those studies, produces a thesis as to the use(s) of that rite which is supported by clear and convincing evidence. Historian "B" 1. Produces a thesis concerning religion, 2. "Seeks to discover" an historical basis for that thesis, 3. Discovers an interesting but obscure rite, AND 4. From conjecture concerning that rite, produces support for the thesis which then becomes clear and convincing. Historian A, in my limited view, has taken the better approach. Historian B will, like a lawyer driven by his belief in his client or cause, always find what he is seeking, even if it is not there, and shape an argument to that effect. (I placed "seeks to discover" in quotes above as I drew the language from one of Mr. Halsall's postings regarding the author of the work at issue.) Reliable historical work follows from a hypothesis formulated following observation. In areas which engender much emotional response (such as homosexuality) on both sides of the issue, the historian should be doubly on guard against falling into the trap of "seeking to discover" historical evidence to validate one's position. FROM: BRUCE W. HOLSINGER BWH2@COLUMBIA.EDU SUBJECT: RE: HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE RITE? - TEXT AND DISCUSSION RESPONSE TO DE JONG Two things: people should wait until Boswell's book appears before they start slamming either its politics or its historicity. Second, Boswell has OVER EIGHTY MANUSCRIPTS, as he told us at a talk last fall here at Columbia. OVER EIGHTY MANUSCRIPTS. This is not a fact which lends itself to a critique of Boswell as "Historian A." The guy also reads about fifteen languages and is a scrupulous and experienced palaeographer, talents I'm sure most folks on this list would give their front teeth for. FROM: ANNA DRONZEK DRON0001@GOLD.TC.UMN.EDU MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS OF LIST MEDIEV-L I too am alarmed at some of the rsponses, most especially the threats Paul Halsall has received. On the one hand, I agree that we should be investigating these texts as scholars interested in pursuing knowledge of the past, even if what we find is disturbing to our own beliefs and views. On the other hand, it would be naive of us to ignore the political dimensions of this debate and our role in it as historians. The reason why I haved followed this thread is that same-sex marriage is before our legislature RIGHT NOW. The Hawaii court, when challenged by those applying for a marriage license, issued a ruling that it was discrimination not to allow same-sex marriage unless the state could demostrate a compelling reason against it. Two bills are currently working their way through our legislature trying to say why not. Testimony and debate has centered around various reasons to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples--children, tradition, and...history. I received a call from someone who opposes same-sex marriage asking for info about some testimony given downtown that cited historical precedent for same-sex marriage ceremonies. This was several weeks ago, before this thread began. I guessed, correctly, that it was probably the work of John Boswell. Now, of course, I have more info, but clearly no easy answers. I bring this up because it is not in- conceivable that historians will be called to testify on this issue, something I am loathe to do. It presents a number of conflicts, between my personal beliefs, my political thoughts, and my historical sensibilities. Most of all, given what I have seen of historians testimonies in the past (at the Clarence Thomas hearings for example), the interests of legislators and historians conflict: they want solid, yes-no answers, while we hedge, qualify, and refuse to put things that simplistically. So, while it would be nice to keep our discussion scholarly, realize that what we say can--and will--be used by those with purely political or personal agendas. This area is a scary borderland for us as scholars: we want to be relevant, to make historical work useful to the public, but how do we convey the nature of our enterprise? FROM: PAUL HALSALL TO: MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS OF LIST MEDIEV-L Well, this is proving to be a very interesting discussion! I, at least, and a number of others who have emailed me privately, find the topic interesting in itself [ie did Christian Churches facilitate some sort of same-sex union ritual, not collateral adoption, and not ritualised friendship pacts in the period c.800-1800]. It is true, as Michael DiMaio has pointed out, that a problem with this diuscussion is that a few people, myself included, have had the opportunity to read proofs of John Boswell's forthcoming book on the subject. I will return to this in a moment. What has been truly amazing to me has been some of the response, not from any poster on Mediev-l, but from lists the discussion has been forwarded to. I seem, for instance, to have been anathematised by various Orthodox clerics [due process does not seem to be part of the deal!] from some minor jurisdiction. This has been odd, as, while I think the adelphopoiia ceremony has been interpreted appropriately by Boswell and others, I am sufficiently affected by social constructionism to have serious questions about assimilating the meaning of ancient rituals to modern circumstances. [This of course calls into question exactly how much the widely varying connubium/gamos institutions of earlier times cam be assimilated to marriage in modern capitalist societies.] I also think that modern gay people have no need to justify their relationships by appealing to the past, just as a consideration of ancient askelpia or medieval almshouses does not have to be appealed to by those in favour of universal health care, although such an inquiry into the ancient may throw interesting light on the present. More that being anathematised [BTW is the story about the old medievalist who called his dog "Anathema" so that he could say "anathema sit" on a regular basis, true?], I was dumbstruck when I discovered that someone had *called*up* Dr. Paul Meyendorff [an excellent scholar of Russian religious history] and asked him if I had been a doctoral student of John Meyendorff [on of the great Byzantinists to have practiced in America in recent decades]. Ed Ponarin posted to the list: "Well, Nikolsky was cited to the effect that Vasily II of Russia and Kazimierz IV of Poland went through the service to further strengthen their political union. Because both were of a very high social status, I'm sure there is a lot of materials in the Russian archives about the nature of their relationship. Paul Halsall conveniently ignored this quote. He also dismissed Russianmedieval legal norms condemning homosexuals to death as having little bearing on the Byzantine texts written shortly before Russia accepted Christianity. However, co-existence of these legal norms and the Byzantine ceremony in Russia under Vasily II makes me wonder about the nature of the ceremony in question." "P.S. Paul Halsall mentioned he was publically called a liar on one of the electronic bulletine boards. Someone cited Paul Meyendorff, the son of late John Meyendorff and a professor of Liturgy, that he does not remember Paul Halsall among his father's disciples, although he was very involved in his father's work. Because Paul Halsall claimed to be a disciple of late John Meyendorff, that statement might be indeed >perceived as equivalent to calling him a liar. I don't know how credible both claims are. I just thought that it might be helpful to clarify this issue. I was never a disciple of John Meyendorff. No-one was. One of his real charms as a dissertation advisor was that he combined a wide erudition [occasionally faulty - I could never convince him that there had indeed bee a maoque in Constnatinople :-)], spot on judgement, and no desire to establish a school, or a shoal, of followers. Fr. John was, however, [for all the relevance it has] my "mentor" - to use the Fordham term for chief academic advisor - at Fordham for five years [He was in fact the reason I went to Fordham]. Calling (718) 817 1000 and asking for the history department should be sufficient to convince anybody of this. I am still bemused that this aspect of my personal background was called into question. Sometimes ad hominem attacks *are* appropriate. I do not see that this was one of them. Now, back to the much more interesting issue of the "Union" of Vasily and Kasmir. I do not know about this and would need more details; what exactly happened? Did they approach the altar, hold hands, recieve crowns and recieve the eucharist together? These are important questions in assessing the rites used. Boswell has many manscripts from all over Europe - all of a clearly related rite. [I am restricting myself here to discussions already published btw]. This rite was not an adoption ceremony, nor a ceremony for monks. The whole question of "freindship" is very complex, as readers of Mediev-l well know; a text is unlikely to have meant the same thing in 1800 as it did in 800 - marriage texts certainly didn't. What Boswell is claiming, is that medieval same-sex union ceremonies are just [or nearly?] as apropros to modern same sex unions as medieval heterosexual rites are to modern heterosexual realtionships. The claim is more complex than its attackers seem to realise; the part that challenges modern theology is not there there might have been "gay marriages", but that "marriage" is not the simple homologous concept that many moderns assume it is. As to Russian penalties for homosexual activity. I suppose the best modern book on this is Eve Levin, _Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs_. She has law codes to go on for the most part, and we all know how problematic they are for construing reality. In the law codes though, the concern is with acts. Anal penetration is called "unnatural" and condemned, as is for instance, sexual intercourse with the woman on top, or with rear entry. Other frorms of same-sex are treated very differently, even in the law codes. Modern readings on to medieval sources, which is what Boswell has sought to avoid, seem endemic among some of the people trying to diprove him. FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF NATURE OF HISTORIOGRAPHY ON GAY ISSUES This is not really, except in a metahistorical way, a MEDIEV-L topic, and so I shall not post again on it. Dan Wages (danw981568@AOL.COM) writes "Paul Halsall states that he cannot understand why "politically correct" types would "claim" the likes of Roehm, Kaiser Wilhelm II, et al. I have never understood why "politically correct" types (in this case, Blacks) would want to claim Cleopatra, either. But whatever the motivation,it seems to me that all historians should deplore Prof. Jeffreys' attempt to do so without a shred of evidence, and indeed despite all the evidence to thecontrary." Comment: Well, I think the claim is false also wrt Cleopatra and I also agree that why anyone would want her is problematic. The single piece of "evidence" is that not all of Cleopatra VII's lineage is known. This is, I agree slender. But the interpretative position of Jeffrey's and co about Ancient Egypt, although usually dismissed, is not in itself ridiculous. The claim made is that many [not all] ancient Egyptians would count as "Black" in the United States. This is surely true, given the peculiar racial constructions that have taken place here. Today, many people in Islamic North Africa are visibly of mixed racial background [perhaps a result, inter alia, of the extensive trans-saharan slave trade], and yet do not consider themselves "Black", although they would be so considered in the United States, at least based on physical criteria. It is at least possible [probable?] that the same situation obtained in the ancient world. Jeffrey's is a racial essentialist, but the claim made by him and other afrocentrists about Egypt is actually very interesting. Let me expand: History is surely as much about the appropriation of the past as about the presentation of the past. Think about "Western Civ" courses. "Western Civilisation" we are told [and teach] begins in Sumer and Egypt, cultures mediated to us through the Bible. WC then migrates to Greece and later to Rome, where it sleeps for a while and then emerges in medieval Italy and France, before migrating to England and thence America, finally resting, inter alia, on the shores of the Pacific. In such narratives the fact that "Civilisation" in Mesopotamia continued from Sumer to the present more or less uninterruptedly is ignored, ditto Egypt. The role of Islam as an equal inheritor of Ancient Western Asian/North African cultures is also typically overlooked. Even those "World Civilisation" textbooks we have, typically *add* chapters about non-western cultures, but maintain the Western Civ. narrative in the "western" chapters. The Afrocentrists, even as they get detail after detail wrong, do challenge us [hence the resistence from those who think of history as "non-political"] to face issues of appropriation. 'Egypt' was not, in its own terms "Black", but neither was it "Western"; when we get worried about one claim, why do we not get worried about the other? Both claims have elements of truth for modern readers - Western Culture does take much from Egypt, Egypt was composed of people of many and mixed races, and was interconnected with other African cultures which were highly developped - although Ancient Egyptians confronted with our modern interpretations may have been rather confused. Dan Wages again: " A whole generation has become convinced by the play (and movie) "Amadeus" that Solieri attempted to poison Mozart, although I understand that there is absolutely no historical evidence that this is true. Similarly, it appears to have been the play "Ross" (sometime in the 50's, I believe) which established the "mythos" of T. E. Lawrence's alleged homosexuality. As JeffSatterfield indicated, no evidence has been produced to support the allegation, and there is considerable information which appears to refute it Halsall's statement that "since Lawrence dedicated his _Seven Pillars_ to his Arabian boyfriend I suppose it was more than just a matter of popular mythos" hardly qualifies as evidence, unless Halsall wishes to contend that book dedications automatically imply a sexual relationship. Such a contention would doubtless fail Dr. Alexander's criteria, as it fails mine. In any case, _Seven Pillars_ was dedicated to "S.A", and Lawrence seems never to have revealed to anyone who or what he had in mind in the dedication. He hinted on more than one occasion that S. A. was either a composite or that it was not necessarily even a person. The conjecture that S. A. was Dahoum (real name: Ahmed), an Arab friend of his and of Sir Leonard Woolley who worked with them on an archaeological dig, is just that:conjecture." COMMENT: Now "mythos", I take it means "explanatory story"? If so, at least according to AL Rowse [gossipy, but reliable as to events and people of his own lifetime] Lawrence's homosexuality was made known in a book by Richard Aldrington. I think what was new about the 1950's play was the claim that Lawrence was a masochist. Dahoum's name was 'Salim Ahmed'. Lawrence referred to him as "Sheik Ahmed" as well. Lawrence was in a group of freinds which included E.M. Forster, Noel Coward and James Hanley. He wrote to Forster once: "You reserve so very much, as I do. If you knew all about me (perhaps you do: your subtlety is very great; shall I put it "if I knew that youw knew....?") you'd think very little of me. And I wouldn't like to feel that I was on the way to being able to know about you". Dahoum was not just a boy who worked on an archeological dig. From 1912 he was a constant companion, nursed in illness by Lawrence, who made a nude carving of him for the roof of his house. In 1913 Lawrence brought Dahoum home to Oxford, whence he returned only during the war. In 1916 Lawrence was writing that he could get no news of Dahoum. The suggestion that this was just a co-worker on a construction site is quite seriously misleading. The poem that dedicates 'Seven Pillars' goes: I loved you, so I drew these tides of men into my hands and wrote my will across the sky in stars To earn you Freedom, the seven pillared worthy house, that your eyes might be shining for me When we came. [The references here seem to be to Plato's little poem to Aster, a classic of Greek homoeroticism] Death seemed my servant on the road, till we were near and saw you waiting; When you smiled, and in sorrowful envy he out ran me and took you apart; Into his quietness. Love, the way-weary, groped to your body, our brief wage, ours for the moment Before earth's soft hand explored your shape, and the blinid worms grew fat upon Your substance. Men prayed that I set our work, the inviolate house, as a memory of you. But for fit monument I shattered it, unfinished; and now The litle things creep oput to patch themselves hovels in the marred shadow Of your gift. Asked what his motives had been during the Peach conference, Lawrence replied "Personal: I liked a particular Arab, and I thought that freedom for the race would be and acceptable present." What Lawrence, never wrote was "I am a homosexual and I had sex with X". Did he really have to? But it seems that such is the only "evidence" that certain, let us call them "epistemologies", would accept. I suggest that this is an untenable position, similar to claiming Walt Whitman was not sexually attracted to men. I leave it up to others to decide which variety of historical interpretation they think more appropriate as we both seek to understand and appropriate the past for ourselves FROM: PAUL HALSALL HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU SUBJECT: THE CONTEXT OF DISCUSSION ON ADELPHOPOIIA I would like to thank many members of the Orthodox list for responses to the recent posting of mine on the adelphopoiia rite. I was not a subscriber to the Orthodox list, but various members have forwarded responses to me. I have some comments: 1. I have seen proofs of Boswell's new book. Since it is embargoed, I cannot, for another 5 weeks or so, discuss its contents in any detail. I will say, however, that each and every objection raised to his thesis has already been discussed in the book. People criticising the book before they have had a chance to read it, and saying "this will be the criticism" do not reveal themselves as having critical minds. 2. It is clear that my posting has cast many posters into a rather pathetic confusion. Various posters have posted interpretations of the rite which are contradictory. If it was a monastic ceremony, why were monks banned from undertaking it? If it was a "brotherhood" ceremony, why was it for two people, and only two people? As one poster did manage to explain, it was not - despite the attempts of Latin translators like Goar - anything to do with adoption [which essentiall creates an unequal relationship - it gives one person power over another]. 3. Despite the protestations that there are no Orthodox homosexuals - an incredible assertion given the make up of many OCA congregations and the extremely low marriage rate of the Orthodox in the US - there are indeed very many, amongst the laity, lower and higher clergy. I could, but will not, name people in all three categories. Some of these are amongst the most conservative Orthodox around. There is also the Orthodox gay group called AXIOS. I might add, by the way, that personally, I was always very moved by the icon in Holy Trinity GOAA Cathedral in Manhattan dedicated to the beloved deacon there who succumbed to the AIDS epidemic. Orthodoxy has always seemed to me to be less hung up about sex than the Augustinian West, and on the whole I think this is a good thing. There are also, btw, a significant number of Orthodox feminists. I will mention in passing Susan Ashbrook Harvey of Brown University and Eva Catafygiou Topping, both who have written on the subject. 4. I think the reason my posting upset so many people is a phenomenon common to the "lumpenfideles" of all religious groups: the belief that what is *now* believed and practised has always been believed and practice, and conversely that what was believed and practised in the past is, fundamentally, what is believed and practised now. This - often falsifiable - assumption seems to bear particularly hard on those with "alpha-type" personalities. Let me give some examples: A: American Protestants who believe the King James Version of the Bible has some special authority [the Greek instance on the special authority of the Septuagint is a parallel phenomenon]. In doing this they remove themselves from any position in critical thinking about the Bible. B: Episcopalians who will talk about the "traditional rites" of their Church without realising that *no* Anglican bishop, until Edward King of Lincoln in *1900* wore a mitre, and that the habit of calling Anglican clergy "father" and the liturgy "mass" is of even more recent development. What is truly traditional in Episcopalianism is its ecclesiology; its rites have varied enormously, but many of its faithful simply do not realise this. C: Roman Catholics who simply will not believe that for at least 700 years the major part of the eucharistic liturgy was said silently with no particiaption by the congregation. One even nowadays finds Catholics who will talk about the "traditional Easterv Vigil - a rite which was only restored in the 1950s. The historical horizons of non-critical members of religious groups tend to be very limited indeed. D: Orthodox who persist in arguing that their Church has always allowed, as a penitential discipline, remarriage of the divorced. This is demonstrably false [try reading the _Pedalion_ on this, and compare with the current practise amongst the Orthodox in the US.] 5. For interest sake I supply you here with another rite. This is a Roman Catholic one. Its purpose was a Church ceremony to inflict civil and social death on a leper! When I have told modern Catholics about this service, many have just flat out denied that it could exist, or that it is interpreted properly. After all Jesus' commands to love, and His dealings with lepers, are a much more prominent part of his ministry than any mention of homosexuality [surely all could agree to that!]. And yet this service did exist, and shows the Church partaking in a - to modern eyes - truly repulsive activity. [I am not sure if services such as this existed in Orthodoxy.] My point here is that modern sensibilities - and all the nasty mail that I and Antony Frank have recieved [some of it overtly anti-semitic by the way] is entirely composed on modern sensibility - are not a very good way of accessing or understanding Church history. Now I am not disgusted by homosexuality, and I think the re- establishment of same-sex union rites, which will happen now, is a good thing. But I would suggest that many people's reaction to this rite is parhaps similar to the reaction of many modern Roman Catholics to the "Leper Death" Rite - denial, then a search for other answers, and finally acceptance that this is indeed part of Church history, that in fact the "lumpenfideles" approach, pious as it may be in motivation, ultimately fails as a Christian approach because it denies the Truth. ****************************************************** ***************** *The Rite for Excluding Lepers* [I have given here the entire rite, plus my comments, which were made in a much earlier posting to the CATHOLIC list] Given a certain amount of discussion about councils, orthodoxy and orthopraxis, I think it would be salutary to take a brief look at the history of church treatment of lepers. My agenda in doing this is to show that even approved Church and council practices of the past are now quite indefensible, and to continually cite and conflate past Church teaching and activity as sources for modern Catholic practice is not at all unproblematic. Leprosy: this word has applied to a number of skin diseases. Those texts of the TORAH which call for the exclusion of people with skin diseases are in fact refering to a range of conditions. Nowadays the word refers almost exclusively to Hanson's Disease - the familiar numbing of extremities and then loss of the same. As a disease it is among the least transmissable of all human ills. Nevertheless for reasons that are hard to understand in the late middle ages and early modern period there was an epidemic of Hanson's disease. Catholic charity was the main source of welfare for all Christians in the middle ages [if any one has evidence of Catholic charity directed to non catholics at the time I would be happy to see it]. But this charity was applied very oddly to lepers. Before the huge epidemic Church councils "marked" lepers as tainted. For instance the council of Orleans in 549 insisted that Lepers had to wear bells as they went around. This was repeated frequently at councils, including the so-called ecumenical council of Lyons. Once the epidemic began, Church action became much harsher. A *ritual death* was inflicted on the leper. He/she was separated from the community and his/her wealth given to heirs. This was done by eccliesiastical not secular authority. A mass was written, the "Mass of St. Lazarus" with a special rite called *De separatione leprasorum" [my trans. from Martene's French below]. Any one can access this mass and rite in a well known collection of rites - E. Martene, _De antiquis ecclesiae ritibus_, 4 vols. (Antwerp: 1736-38). It is available in microfilm. TEXT: SEQUUTUR PROHIBITIONES SEU DEFENSIONES LAZARO FIENDAE RUBRIC When the priest celebrates the mass, he must put on a surplice and a stole round his neck and must give some holy water to the said leper, and he must do it outside if there is no bad weather such as rain or other necessity. The said priest must lead him to the place where his house is built in a field [*the place of exile*] and must exhort him there to bear himself with patience and charity after the example of JESUS CHRIST and his blessed pains. Because for suffering much sadness, tribulation, illness... Note that if it is strictly necessary because of cold weather or other things, the priest could do and say these things at the entrance of the Church and does not have to go to the field. When the said rite [mesel?] is at the entrance of the exile-house, where the leper must be put to live, the priest must state the following inderdictions to the the leper. RITE [Je te defens] I forbid you ever to enter a church or pantry [moustier], to ever go to the fair or mill or market, or be in the company of people. I forbid you to ever leave your hut without your leper's habit, so that all might know you, and I forbid you absolutely to go out with head uncovered [deschaux?]. I forbid you to ever wash your hand or any other thing around you in the river, nor in the founatin, and you must not drink there either; and if you wish some water to drink, pit your ladel in your barrel.. I forbid you to touch anything you sell or buy, until such a thing is yours. I absolutely forbid you to enter into a tavern. If you wish some wine, you must buy it or it must be given to you, and keep it in your barrel. I forbid you you to live with another woman than yours. [This goes on for another few paragraphs. This is only part of the rite] [in the end the Leper is left alone by society] END TEXT What we have here is the Church specifically taking part in a ritual and symbolic death for a leper. After this rite, she/he could no longer count as part of civil society. The leper was "named" as dead. This was not a minor rite, hard to find, but the Church's response to a the social hatred that Lepers faced [and still face]. It was not the only Church response. The Franciscans in particular tried other approaches. The point is, I do not think anyone would agree that the Church should be involved in this type of practice now. Let me repeat, Leprosy was not infectious to a significant degree [especially compared to the huge number of other diseases that were infectious and not so treated, the "white death" - tuberculosis - most prominently]. The Church was responding to the prejudices of civil society. When civil society changed its approach to leprosy, so did the Church. The church was acting out of ignorance. [SOME HEAVY REACTIONS TO THE DISCUSSION] FROM: NICK COBB COBB TO: MULTIPLE RECIPIENTS OF LIST ORTHODOX SUBJECT: THE ADELPHOPOIIA FORGERY Michael and All, Well, some very interesting developments regarding this evil homosexuality stuff. First off, Paul Halsall stated that the late Fr. John Meyendorff, world- reknown Byzantine historian and Dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary, was, I believe, his reader on his disertation. After speaking with Professor Paul Meyendorff, reknown Professor of Liturgical Theology and son of the late Fr. Meyendorff, he seriously doubts Mr. Halsall's claim. "Yes, many people like to drop my father's name in regard to their work, but I was quite familiar with my father's work and those he instructed and I've never heard Paul Halsall ever mentioned." Furthermore, asking Professor Meyendorff, who is an EXPERT on ALL the liturgies of the Orthodox and Roman church, about an "adelphopoiia" service or rite, he never heard of it or ever came accross it in Slavonic or Greek. "Adelphos" a brother (so probably even in Rom. xvi 23, 2 Cor. xii 18; also, a member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian (particularly in the plural). "Adelphotees" brotherhood (in the collective sense), the members of the Christian Church, Christendom. It is interesting that people who have researched liturgical theology, ancient and current, Greek and Slavonic, can't seem to find this so-called, historical Orthodox (lost) rite---imagine that!!! FROM: EFTHIMIOS MAVROGEORGIADIS EM101@UNIX.YORK.AC.UK ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY SUBJECT: RE: THE INFAMOUS ADELPHOPOIIA SERVICE I don't know why everyone keeps calling the service an _adoption_ service. It is "adelfopoiia" which means "brother _making_", not adopting, not anything! It's exactly what Macrides says in the article you posted: ritualized friendship (the closest form of it). I won't reserve my judgement of Mr Halsall's messages though! And I won't reserve my judgement of all the rumors that are associated with Mr Boswell's book. We shall be able to criticise Mr Boswell's book once it's published but his opinions, which are already known, can be condemned ecclesiastically and anathematized even before we see his book. The book itself will receive its due criticism when out and we can be certain of the outcome of that criticism. Nobody would argue against a book dealing with the _ABUSE_ of church rituals by homosexuals in the middle ages or even by homosexual priests who managed despite the rules of the Church to get into the priesthood. But I do not think, I definitely believe that a book pledging to present the Orthodox Church as allowing homosexual marriages is going to be a failure scholarly seen - except among "gay-circles"! [in ref. to mention of Hate maessages] I would not be quick to condemn anybody who has reacted even in a "non-Christian" way. I am sure none of the Orthodox people here would react to a personal attack but when the Church is attacked we all have to stand in Her defence with _EVERY_ means that would make her attackers come to their senses before it is too late for _THEM_. Nobody condemned St. Athanasius when he slapped Arius in the 1st Oecumenical Council. In fact, he was blessed for what he did! Our verbal attack was not against the person itself, for whom we pray, but against his opinions. We all know that it would be more effective (as far as outsiders are concerned) to present our arguments against his but this will not stop us from trying to "wake him up" by any means. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not keep on preaching when the merchants wouldn't leave the Temple of Solomon. He took action against them. Should He be condemned? God forbid! Brothers, evil has stopped being hidden; evil has stopped being presenting itself to the world; evil is now trying to prevail. We are not going to allow this kind of "gay self-justification movement" to go on at least as far as the Orthodox Church is concerned. But the problem is that I sense it is not the Orthodox Church that they are after. I think that what these people are trying to do is force the protestant groups to allow "gay-marriages" by presenting the Church that everybody knows to have the correct faith as allowing this kind of abominations. They very well know that, whatever they do, there is not going to be an ecclesiastical debate of this kind in the Orthodox Church. As a Greek bishop said concering women priests: "In the Orthodox Church we won't have such problems simply because no feminist is a practicing Orthodox". The same applies to homosexuals. Since they cannot be members of the Church as long as they keep on sinning, there is not going to be any problem in the Orthodox Church. Anyway, thanks for your post Michael but we should bear in mind that it is not adoption that is related to the subject here; it's friendship. Therefore, I think a research done on pagan "eternal friendship" vows would be of much more interest in relation to the "adelfopoiia" service than the Roman laws on adoption. One more final point. I don't think that the fact that you posted your message _WITH_ the bit about "Orthodox... questionable behaviour" and "hate mail" on the various medieval lists was fair to the Orthodox side. Especially since the people on those lists have not seen the messages you describe as "hate mail" and, thus, cannot judge for themselves. Please, express your opinions about messages posted by us on this list only. Disclaimer: This is _NOT_ hate mail! ;-) FROM: ANTONY FRANKS FRANKS@MAIL.LOC.GOV> Paul, I don't know of your personal situation, or background, but I thought I'd let you know that we've become famous (infamous?) in Orthodox circles. Orthodox Christian circles. Somehow, the Rite of Spiritual Brotherhood has gotten your name attached, as well as mine own, and we are roundly condemned in tandem. I was aware from my reading of the talent some people have for theological abuse, but I wasn't aware that the Russians-Slavic churches have refined it to a high art form. I've had items forwarded to me by list members, and some things sent to me directly. Much of it is signed with real names, so it can't be called anonymous hate mail, but t's pretty close. Do be prepared, though, as it can be rather strong stuff for the uninitiated. Also, there never, from Orthodox, seem to be direct physical threats or harm. They seem (and others tell me I'm correct in this) generally to content themselves with telling you, in inventive detail, what's going to happen to you when God gets his hands on you. So far, the office favorites here have been "roasted on a spit in hell for all eternity with no basting to relieve you"; and, my own favorite soubriquet, "Christ-Killing-Jew-Underminer-of-the-Pure-Faith". When I get my hands on the family Packard, I think I'll have that painted around the coat of arms as the motto. The only troubling one has been an anonymous message that switches back and forth between using We and I and talks about the anger of God waiting in the shadows to smite me. It was signed "Hand of God". I told a good friend here at work, that's what they can put on my tombstone when I die of old age, "Smote by the Hand of God." It's to be expected, many of the strongly ethnic Orthodox groups are nearly claustrophobic in their religion. We are dealing with matters very unsettling to them. Unfortunately, the near-hysterical response one gets in doing any degree of research does them, and the researcher, no good. I have received some good, serious responses on the rite itself, unfortunately contradictory. All seem to be from Russian and Slavic backgrounds. I would like to hear from Greek and Mediterranean people about it. I will try to condense the serious replies for the network. FROM: "ANTONY FRANKS FRANKS@MAIL.LOC.GOV Paul, Thank you for the kind message. I, too, agree that the more informed discussion and research on these matters, the better. Alas, there are those who feel that even broaching the topic is an attack on The Faith. Things become more awkward for me, since the late Classical early Christian period is what I'm mainly concentrating on now. As an exdample, I've had one private "not for distribution" message that this was all gone into thoroughly many years ago after the subject of Rites came up at a conference on homosexuality at Harvard. The matter was taken up with Fr. Meyendorff, who had xeroxes of unavailable Russian books, and was settled. Of course, no one published anything, or told any students about it, so it has--to the Orthodox mind, unreasonably--come up again. I'm very interested in the fact that my responses have been from Russian and Slavic backgrounds: the use (or forbidding of) the Rite among them seems to vary in purpose over the course of time. This is another sore point: I must deal with the mentality that the Church as it now lives and practices is exactly the same, with the same teachings and prejudices, as in sub-apostolic times. This is no less prevalent in Orthodox as in Roman circles. I am glad that Boswell's book is finally coming out. As I mentioned once, I have seen ms's of it twice through the Cataloging in Publication program. I was not, to be blunt, impressed, and was glad each time that the publisher had withdrawn the book and had us cancel the record. It was just too early in the research process to publish. I have always thought that some clerk got overly efficient and sent the data in without thinking. At any rate, one must be sure of one's self when telling people that what they know is so, isn't. Oh, and there's an Antiochean church in Calif. which is including us in their petitions at Liturgy--with what intention, they didn't say, but I assume for the best. I wonder if Boswell gets mail like this? If so, some of them must be doozies. FROM: ANTONY FRANKS FRANKS@MAIL.LOC.GOV SUBJECT: WELL ... PH, The Orthodox list suddenly closed to new members ... That must be why I haven't been able to get on it. I suspect something akin to an ecclesiastical circling of the wagons has started. As for the ad hominem attacks, you ain't seen nothing yet. There's a sense in which the timeliness of sending out that translation might have been wrong. The fringe elements will be able to organize somewhat (as though we Orthodox are capable of that-- it's one of our more endearing-irritating habits) prior to the eventual publication of Boswell's book. Re: Boswell. John MacNeil (sp?) was here last week and said that Boswell is quite ill. If so, unfortunate for this matter, as any future academic debate will require the actual researcher, who has the experience of material seen and analyzed at his command. But really, forgery? After all the material they have themselves provided to demonstrate their own interpretations of the document? FROM: MARK GILSTRAP GILSTRAP@GISMO.GEOLOGY.INDIANA.EDU [AFTER COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE COBB POST ABOVE COULD NOT BE ANSWERED] Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 12:17:02 EST5 "From P Halsall: The ORTHODOX list is currently moderated, and as such you are>responsible for the content of what is publically distributed. This post is fallacious, libellous, and malacious." I will post this statement (and those below) from you on the list, unless you object. I apologize for any misunderstanding that arose from Mr. Cobb's investigation of your credentials. I frankly am not sure what a third party's opinion (even if he is the son) adds to (or detracts) to either any implications Mr Cobb might have made, or to the validity of your viewpoint. Such appeals to authority are certainly fallacious. It is the intent of the list to be educational, informative, but not to intentionally offend. "a variety of nasty mail has been sent to me, and Antony Frank." This is unfortunate. Are you sure it was sourced from among our membership? I would like to point this out as being an inappropriate response (not using names) if we did such a thing (your providing names would help me determine if list members did this). If the posting from the list acted to promote this, I of course should include this sentence in a reply to the list. I will remind everyone on the list that we wish to remove emotions from what can easily be emotionally charged issues and that to be truly fruitful, these discussions should be based on doctrine, fact, logic, truth, or whatever. The point being that name-calling does not have a place there. "But the above post goes beyond this. It states that I lied andmislead about certain very important detailsi]- specifically about my relationship with John Meyendorff. Fr. Meyendorff was my dissertation supervisor until his death - ample documentation signed by Fr. Meyendorff is available at Fordham [718 817 1000, ask for History Department] to confirm this." With your permission I will post this paragraph as well. "I have already written to Nick Cobb, but as Listowner or a moderated list, you also are responsible for preventing libel and defamation of character [surely a sin in Orthodoxy as in Catholicism by theway]. " I wrote Mr Cobb as well. I have had more than a few problems with his style over the last few months, and I believe many members will lend little credibility to much of what he says. "I have been prevented from posting any reply and I *insist* that both Cobb and you make a public retraction and apology for the implication that I am a liar." I will leave Mr Cobb's actions up to him. If he persists in defaming individuals I will have no option but to remove him from the list. As for myself, I will gladly post your objections to this post, but take no responsibilty for Mr Cobb other than to maintain the rules under which we operate. FROM: "ANTONY FRANKS" Subject: MORE OF THE SAME PH, On to Rites and passages: Mr. XXXX has been forwarding material of interest from the Orthodox network he is on. It's been closed somehow, so I can't get on. The problem I see is, the material they're coming up with is all too late for my interests. What the Russians and Slavic groups did with the Rite is interesting, but it doesn't neccessarily say what its original intention and use were. There's a remarkable lack of historical sense, as well as philological accuracy. I would agree that we can see some of the original meaning in a much-evolved rite still in use today; but I would not agree with the Russians that we can read their meaning backwards into the original. There is also an ominous reference to a work now being translated from Russian on this subject, as the "Only approved scholarly work on the subject". You can see what kind of an academic battle this will be. Another odd thing, there have been references to Boswell's original book on this subject in the Orthodox network, but no one seems to know about the forthcoming book. Correction, I just recalled one person who says he read it, and that there's no claims about Marriage in it. From: ANTONY FRANKS FRANKS@MAIL.LOC.GOV XXXX, I don't blame you for leaving Orthonet. My staaretz said not even to t ry getting on that thing. It's amazing what can be passed off as the TRUTH. I was looking forward to the translation of this infallible book that's supposed to explain all, but I guess they'll just keep it to themselves. I received a "private message not for distribution" at one point in all this from a professor telling about that item. According to his memory, this all came up some years ago and was settled in their minds by reference to the same volume. Of course, no one published or told anyone--such as students--about it. The Orthodox paranoid attitude toward scholarship and historical research never ceases to amaze me. Especially, when you stop to think that so many converts (such as me) come to Orthodoxy through that means. The expansion of knowledge of our Faith is far less damaging to It than the response of some of those in It. (Hope that makes sense--it's first thing in the morning and I'm still on my first cup of coffee.) I have always found my appreciation of, and participation in, a part of Orthodoxy is increased through my reading on it. As for the issue of this particular Rite, I don't really emote much one way or the other about it. If it is truly a marriage rite of some sort, I find that entirely natural--there are Orthodox rituals for anything and everything in the human experience in the early days. If it is not, so be it. That still says nothing about "official" attitudes on homosexuality in the early church. My current feeling is, that the whole subject was in a state of flux until relatively later than many people think. FROM: NICK COBB SUBJECT: FROM PAUL HALSALL Truly a worthy posting on Holy Wednesday!!! My comments were neither fallacious, libellous or malacious. Fr. Meyendorff never had anything to do with anyone writing about homosexual rites in the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, the above mentioned person and their work is not recognized by those who knew Fr. Meyendorff's associations and work. And finally, the previously posted "so- called" orthodox homosexual rite, is not known nor can it be found by Orthodox liturgical scholars. [A RECENT NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT] FROM: ANON@QUEERNET.ORG (ANONYMOUS SENDER) SUBJECT: DEB PRICE'S LATEST COLUMN ONCE UPON A TIME: GAY CATHOLIC MARRIAGE RITES By DEB PRICE DENNIS Bourgault wanted a traditional Catholic wedding. Michael Suddath's plans didn't include a marriage ceremony of any kind. Then, on the anniversary of their first date, Dennis popped the question. ''At the end of the meal on our first anniversary, Dennis pulls out a ring and says, 'How would you like a spring wedding?' '' recalls Michael, who first met Dennis at church. Although sure of his commitment to Dennis, Michael initially hesitated to take part in a holy union ceremony. He feared that such a public gay rite might harm his dental practice. But Dennis, the lawyer in the family, persuaded Michael that asking God's blessing and pledging their love while standing before friends and relatives would strengthen their relationship. Dennis didn't get a spring wedding. He and Michael were too caught up in buying a house in Washington, D.C., to prepare for a 150-guest celebration. But in the autumn of 1992, they took their vows in a traditional Catholic marriage ceremony. After taking communion, the couple listened to a 12th-century marriage prayer asking God to ''preserve their union without jealousy'' and ''grant them unashamed fidelity and sincere love.'' A religious service in which two devoutly Catholic men promise to be faithful to each other can be described as ''wonderful,'' ''touching,'' ''inspiring.'' Others might prefer ''ridiculous,'' ''outrageous,'' ''disgusting,'' even ''blasphemous.'' But most folks would probably agree that one thing a gay Catholic wedding surely is not is ''traditional.'' Yet medieval scholar John Boswell is on the verge of throwing open a long-bolted window to the past and establishing that Catholic gay marriages are astoundingly traditional. In ''Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe'' (Villard Books, $25), a bombshell guaranteed to rock assumptions about Christian animosity toward homosexuality, Boswell will produce evidence that for at least 1,000 years the Catholic Church had special, approved rituals for joining two men or two women in wedlock. During 12 years of research on the book due out June 30, Boswell, chairman of Yale's history department, began lecturing on what he was discovering by translating ancient Catholic manuals. Dennis and Michael chose the 12th-century prayer for their service because Boswell says it was written for same-sex weddings. Pope John Paul II, obviously, will have to attempt to discredit Boswell's findings. Just two months ago the pope blasted the European Parliament for urging its 12 member nations to legalize gay marriage. The pontiff contended parliament was ''inappropriately conferring an institutional value on deviant behavior.'' Yet Boswell argues that the Vatican valued gay marriage until at least the 18th century. ''It was the civil government that was burning (gay) people at the stake after the church had married them,'' he says. Today, all 50 U.S. states deny gay couples a marriage license even if they've had a religious wedding. Boswell points ''the way toward reclaiming a vital part of our Christian tradition,'' says a Catholic priest who risked punishment for uniting Dennis and Michael. They were wed in an Episcopal sanctuary because same-sex unions are now banned on Catholic property. In studying Catholic rites performed over the centuries, Boswell finds services for mixed couples stressed multiplication, procreation -- ''the wife shall be as a fruitful vine'' -- while those for same-sex couples had a simpler calculus: ''a very beautiful emphasis on love.'' Deb Price is the news editor at the Washington bureau of the Detroit News. Write to her in care of the Mercury News, 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, Calif. 95190. APPENDIX II - SERGIUS AND BACCHUS From: Richard Oliver ROLIVER%TINY.COMPUTING.CSBSJU.EDU@KSUVM.KSU. EDU Last August when the rumors about Boswell's book on medieval "marriage" ceremonies began appearing on the Internet, out of curiosity I did a brief investigation on the martyrs Sergius and Bacchus who were mentioned as an inspiration for the "rite." Perhaps now that the topic has resurfaced here some readers may be interested in what I found out about the martyrs: Some information and sources for further investigation concerning the martyred/married(?) pair, Sergius and Bacchus. Feast day, formerly 7 October; "cults suppressed in 1969" (Ramsgate, 505). "Sergius and Bacchus, MM. They were Roman soldiers, officers in the household of Emperor Maximian. Sergius is said to have been 'primicerius gymnasii trionum' at Trieste, and Bacchus a subaltern officer. For refusing to sacrifice to the gods, they were ignominiously dressed in women's clothing and conducted through the streets of Arabissus (near Comana in Cappadocia). Then they were scourged until Bacchus died, 1 Oct. 290. Sergius was brought to Resapha (Augusta Eupratasiae) in Syria, where, after various tortures, he was decapitated, 7 Oct. 290. "The tomb of S. Sergius at Resapha was a famous shrine. In 431, Bishop Alexander of Hierapolis built a magnificent church in his honor. In 434, the town of Resapha was raised to the rank of an episcopal see and was named Sergiopolis. Emperor Justinian I enlarged and fortified it. Sergius was venerated as patron of Syria. Parts of his relics were transferred to Venice, where these saints were patrons of the ancient cathedral. In the seventh century a church was dedicated to them in Rome. F. 7 Oct" {Holweck, R.G., _A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints_, (St. Louis; London: Herder, 1924), 901}. Variations/expansions on the above life: "...absenting themselves when Emperor Maximian was sacrificing to Jupiter...." "Sergiopolis became one of the greatest pilgrimage centers of the East. Many churches bore the name of Sergius (sometimes with Bacchus), and his cultus was extraordinarily widespread and popular; the nomads of the desert looked on him as their special patron saint" (Attwater, 305-6). "These martyrs were said to be officers of the Roman army on the Syrian frontier, Sergius being described as commandant of the recruits' school and Bacchus as his subaltern. ... On their refusal they were stripped of their arms and badges of rank, dressed up in women's clothes, and so paraded through the streets. ... St. Bacchus died under the lash. His body was thrown out on to the highway, were vultures protected it from the attacks of dogs, an incident recorded of several other martyrs. St. Sergius was made to walk a long distance in shoes with nails thrust through into his feet, and was beheaded. ...the particulars of their passion are far from trustworthy. ... Sergius and Bacchus became the heavenly protectors of the Byzantine army, with the two Theodores, Demetrius, Procopius and George. ... Their "acts" are preserved in Latin, Greek and Syriac" {Butler's Lives of the Saints, "Oct. 7"}. SERGIUS AND BACCHUS, MARTYRS: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Analecta Bollandiana, 14 (1895), 373-395. Attwater, Donald. The Avenel dictionary of saints. New York : Avenel Books : distributed by Crown Publishers, [1981] c1965. The Book of Saints : a dictionary of servants of God canonized by the Catholic Church / comp. by the Benedictine Monks at St. Augustine's Abbey Ramsgate. 6th ed., rev. and re-set. London : Black, 1989. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York, 1907-1914. Delehaye, Hippolyte, S.J. Les origines du culte des martyrs. 2. ed., rev. Brussels : Societe des bollandistes, 1933, 210-211. Guerin, Paul. Les petits Bollandistes: vies des saints, etc. 17 v. Paris, 1865. Le Bas, Philippe [and George Waddington?]. Voyage archeologique en Grece et en Asie. Paris, 1870, t. 3; n. 2124. Lucius, Ernst. Die Anfaenge des Heiligenkultus in der Christlichen Kirche. Herausg. G. Anrich. Tuebingen, 1908, 223. Piolin, Paul. Supplement aux vies des saints et specialement aux Petits bollandistes d'apres les documents hagiographiques les plus authentiques et les plus recents. 3 v. Paris : Bloud et Barral [1885-86]. Stadler, J. E. Vollstaendiges, Heiligen-Lexikon : oder, Lebens- geschichten aller heiligen, seligen &c.&c.; hrsg. von Joh. Evang. Stadler, und Franz Joseph Heim in Augsburg. 5 v. Augsburg : B. Schmid, 1858-. Synaxarium Alexandrinum. 2 v. in 6. edidit [et interpretatus est] I. Forget. Louvain : Secretariat du CorpusSCO, L Durbecq 1953-1963. (Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium. v. 47-49, 67, 78, 90. Scriptores Arabici; Series 3; t. 18-19). Thurston, Herbert J, S.J., and Donald Attwater. Butler's Lives of the Saints. 4 v. Westminster : Christian Classics, 1988. page 8