Boswell Discussion
Medieval List Discussion: July 1994
From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU
Re: OK, So What Do People Think of Boswell's New Book?
on list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV-L%UKANVM.bitnet@vm42.cso.uiuc.edu>
If Newsweek made a reference to an "unamed Jesuit working
at the Pont. Inst. for Oriental Studies" [paraphrase], I
suspect that Fr. Robert Taft SJ is being referred to.
Taft is probably the greatest living expert on Eastern liturgies.
I had the opportunity to meet him at the May Byzantine Symposium
at Dumbarton Oaks. At that time he had not heard of Boswell's
book, and was eager for the reference which I gave him.
Taft's opinions on any Eastern litugical question cannot be dismissed
on the basis of his vocation [although I think it is also true
that pressures to conform to a narrowly defined orthodoxy are
increasingly present in religious universities of many Christian
denominations.]
I think the basic question is this: Was Augustine married?
One sort of historian will immediately say "no". That
marriage was a defined concept in Roman law and that Augustine
never made such a contract with anyone [as far as is known.]
Another sort of historian [I am not reducing the world to only
two sorts by the way], will argue that such a legalistic/positivistic
view of the past is seriously distorting. Augustine formed a long
term sexual and domestic relationship with a women who bore a
child by him; when Augustine's mid-life crisis lead him to break
up this family [although again the legalist would not that it
was not a "family" properly speaking], he made sure
that his "woman" did not go off with another man, but
had her shipped off to N Africa with a vow of future continence.
In every way but legally Augustine was married, would say this
putative second historian.
As Boswell argues this is a significant hermenuetic difference
between historians. He is careful to note his opponents objections.
That Boswell's critics, so far, seem to think that the only view
was that Augustine was not married [to keep to the above example],
does not speak well of them.
Advocacy Scholarship?
from Paul Halsall on list
MEDIEV-L MEDIEV-L%UKANVM.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU
Bruce Holsinger had written
Jesuit working...now THERE'S an objective option.
Mark Adderley comments
My problem here is the assumption that those who hold religious
convictions cannot be objective. Are we to assume that objectivity
is a function of sexual orientation? Or political views? Or maybe
(now HERE'S a blasphemy) knowledge?
I think the problem that Bruce was highlighting is not the supposed
unobjectivity of Jesuit scholars [I am sure he knows perfectly
well that the Society of Jesus has contributed many great minds
to scholarship in many fields], rather it is to put into question
the repeated charge against Boswell that he is an "advocacy
scholar".
Of course Boswell is an "advocacy scholar" in the sense
that what he is interested in is a reflection of his own life.
He is quite open about being a gay Roman Catholic for instance,
and it would be ridiculous to argue that this does not come through
in his areas of research. The question is whether he is dishonest
and/or inadequate as a scholar. [The final two questions would
not usually be raised, I should note, about most other historians
holding leading chairs at one of the most elite universities in
the field of history].
If one insists that *because* Boswell is gay [the ad hominem basis
of all the "advocacy scholar" charges - and of course
sometimes ad hominem arguments *are* well founded], he *cannot*
write or *has not* written good history, then we are faced with
a real problem in medieval studies. Much of the work here has
been done by people with agendas [do I have to say 'Cantor' again?].
In Biblical studies and intellectual history, the situation is
even more devastating, not to mention women's history were virtually
every writer has been possessed of one of two common genders.
Again, Brent Shaw accused Boswell of "verging on paranoia"
in his New Republic review, but what is one to make of "objective"
newspaper articles, which criticize Boswell as an "advocacy
scholar" but then cite Milton Efthimiou, an employee of the
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, or professed evangelicals without
noting the same about them.
For if Boswell has an political agenda [one I might note that
is in direct contrast with the attitudes of most others in the
new field of lesbian and gay history, e.g. Halperin at MIT], then
surely we must admit that all Christian scholars and perhaps more
clearly, since their Church emphasizes continuity and tradition,
Roman Catholic scholars are also suspect in areas such as biblical
studies and early church history [after all, why call Augustine
a "saint" and Marcion a "heretic" if you are
not advancing a certain agenda?]. One might add that there is
no agency or power in the gay community which could control what
Boswell has to say; for Roman Catholic clergy this is not true
- there are limits, as Fr. Curran discovered, to what they will
be allowed to say without repercussions. In fact, I think such
central attacks are rare, and I also believe that many of the
Catholic priests I have had as teachers are honest and strong
enough men that they would hold to what they believed was true
in the face of all attacks. On the face of it though, when it
comes to criticizing Boswell, it has been his attackers who have
clearly had an agenda.
From: Tom <BROBSON@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU>
Date: 21 July 1994
Subject: Re: OK, So What Do People Think of Boswell's New Book?
To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV
First I should state that I have read at least 60% of Boswell's
book. I also read his previous book on homosexuality and Christian
tolerance. Any who know Boswell, or his work, would agree that
he is a painstakingly precise research who truly seeks not just
translations or the semiotics of a historical record, but also
true understanding of the cultural context in its broadest view.
Landscape or tapestry are two other words that come to mind regarding
his work to examine the dynamics of history; difficult work given
the subject: SEX. A subject which our species seems particularly
confused by and quite unwillingly today, or in other times, to
simply treat as a natural component of existence on this planet
(true some species reproduce asexually, but I hope readers see
my point).
At any rate, the statement that his work is "advocacy scholarship"
is an affront to any thinking person. If his work is "advocacy
scholarship" then so too are all the works written regarding
any aspect of heterosexuality throughout history or for that matter
any work that attempts to shed new light onto any valid historical
subject. Darwin's work on the evolution of species would have
to be viewed as "advocacy scholarship" as would all
of the works that have pushed us to revisit the nature and fate
of the dinosaurs, or of plate tectonics, or of any subject you
wish to insert (Gibson and the Romans).
Boswell makes no inappropriate leaps in logic or of imagination.
He carefully checks and double checks the record and the cultural
meaning of words. READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU JUMP INTO THIS FRAY.
Do you know the meaning of "brothers" in the original
context? Does brotherhood today mean what it did 1500 or 2000
years ago? Find out for yourself by reading the book. It is the
ultimate in poor scholarship and deficient analysis to comment
(in any fashion) on a primary work that you have not read!
Finally, as regards the article in the Chronicle, it seems to
me that conspiracies are the educated person's equivalent of Elvis
sightings, or "I had sex with space aliens" tabloid
headlines. We are ever willing to find a conspiracy and believe
in it. I personally did not notice this facet of the article.
Clearly the editors are too (as you say) clever, for me. Or are
you looking for something you wanted to find?
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 20:12:40 -0400
From: Tom Noble tfn@UVA.PCMAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU
Subject: Re: advocacy scholarship
A solid review is one that takes a book seriously on its won terms
and deals with it positively or negatively as the case seems to
demand. A critical review is one that examines a work closely,
not one that is negative. There have been good reviews, by these
standards, of Boswell's book. One is by Brent Shaw in the July
18/25 New Republic. Another very interesting one was in last Sunday's
Washington Post Book World by--fasten your seat belts--Camille
Paglia. A few weeks ago in the NYT book review Meyendorff had
his go at it. Each of these reviews has been devastating. I read
the book last April--a prepublication copy--and I concur with
the negative assessments. The evidence will not bear the interpretations
Boswell asks it to. I know and admire JEB Boswell.. I count him
a friend. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I agree
with his book. Is he advocating something? Certainly, but where's
the harm in that? The case rises or falls on whether or not the
rites of adelphopoiesis that B. finds in several (around 16, if
I remember) Orthodox liturgies constitute a rite for "gay
marriage." I do not think so and so far no specialists in
Orthodox liturgy thinks so either. Is there a pervasive disinclination
on the part of conservative or touchy Orthodox scholars to give
B. a hearing. In some cases, undoubtedly. But not in all cases.
The case is weak. And the western evidence B adduces--three early
medieval charters and a chance reference in Giraldus Cambrensis--are
deeply ambiguous, widely separated in time and place, and almost
certainly irrelevant. So at best, B. has a curious Orthodox phenomenon.
And virtually his only corroborative anecdotal evidence is from
late medieval Albania. I leave it to others more knowledgeable
than I to decide what that means.
Each reader must decide for him or herself. But it will be entirely
possible to disagree with this book, and even to have grave doubts
about its scholarship, without being homophobic, conservative,
or indeed and apologist for any cause. One can approach this book
the way one would a book on, say, the Norman conquest or the Fourth
Crusade or the Reconquista.
Tom Noble
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994
From: "E. Mavrogeorgiadis" <em101@UNIX.YORK.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: OK, So What Do People Think of Boswell's New Book?
I haven't read Boswell's book yet. I'm looking forward to its
coming to England. However, as a Greek and an Orthodox I can imagine
that he must be indeed jumping on very shakey grounds, if he is
trying to prove that a "gay-marriage" rite could have
been accepted by the Church in the middle ages. I've heard that
he uses some material from Albania. I don't think that would be
enough though, if he is trying to prove that the attitude of the
Church towards homosexuality has changed since then. The evidence
from the penitentials and the homilies in the middle ages is _so_
overwhelming that I do not know how he has managed with those.
Or maybe he just skips them? Moreover, the very word "adelfopoieia
- adelfopoiesis" has no homosexual connotations in the Greek
language. The fact that the service itself was only suppress in
Greece on June 11, 1859 because "fraternizations took place
with intentions of conspiracy, murder and other atrocities"
(Mantzouneas, Evangelos, _Fraternization from a Canonical Perspective_)
shows that it was not immorality or a change of attitude on the
part of the Church towards homosexuality that suppressed this
service; it was its abuse by greedy individuals. Even if some
of the "blood-brothers" were sodomites this does not
mean that the service was written to cover their unions. It could
have been again abused by them in their attempts to find excuses
for being together or more intimate in public but this again can
in no way be twisted in such a way as to prove that homosexual
marriages were ever blessed by the Church. The fact that quite
a few Russian princes, who are historically thought of as not
being sodomites, were "blood-brothers" shows that the
service was nothing else but what the word means: "adelfopoieia"
= brother-making, friend-making. I've made clear from the beginning
that I'm an Orthodox Greek. Therefore I neither expect nor want
to be thought of as an objective critic of Boswell's book. However,
I do not think Boswell is objective either. The book and the services
have to be looked at not as isolated instances cut off from their
context. If one does that, I believe Boswell's book won't stand
the simplest criticism.
[...]
Not objectively
Efthimios Mavrogeorgiadis
From: Paul Halsall <HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU>
Subject: Re: advocacy scholarship
To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L
Tom Noble is certainly correct that fair reviewer may disagree
strongly with Boswell's conclusions about the Adelphopoiia ceremony.
To accuse Boswell of "verging on paranoia" as Shaw does,
or to state, as does Paglia that the middle ages are "ostensibly
his specialty" makes me wonder though, Tom, just why you
think the reviews in the TNR and the Washington Post even approach
fairness. I am much more keen to see reviews by people like Brundage,
Fr. Taft and Ruth Macrides.
The "Meyendorff" you refer to is Paul Meyendorff, a
very eminent specialist in *Russian* history, not my former mentor
John Meyendorff who died about two years ago. From logs of the
ORTHODOX list that I kept a few months back, Paul Meyendorff was
then denying the existence of this liturgy at all, or [quite possibly
to be fair] his students at St. Vladmir's were understanding him
to say that. It is clear, however, that the Orthodox Churches
have decided to mount some sort of attack on this book [or am
I being paranoid?].
One of the most persistent aspects of the criticism has been a
basic misreading of what Boswell has argued. [Again, perhaps its
me?]. As I read him he is not arguing that these ceremonies were
"same-sex marriages", since of course there were no
standard "different-sex marriage" liturgies until rather
late. What he is arguing, oddly for someone who has a reputation
as an "essentialist", is that "marriage" is
not a simple term with a cross cultural meaning [a point I am
sure most here would agree with, but which can seem devastating
to the more theologically naïf - or even not so naïf
- look at Pope John Paul II's attack on "anthropology"
and defense of universal morality in his recent encyclical 'Veritatis
Splendor']. Rather Boswell seems to me to be arguing that *as
we now understand marriage ceremonies in the modern West* - as
public liturgical services commemorating romantic and erotic relationships
between two people who will be publicly associated henceforth
and - may if possible - raise children - then these *adelphopoiia*
ceremonies [over 55 MSS, not 16 btw Tom] are understandable *to
us* as marriages. Just as the relationships between American slaves
who could not legally marry, are now understood by us to have
created families, whatever the legal prohibitions.
Shaw, whose TNR review I have gone over most closely [Paglia will
say anything for publicity, and as she detests footnotes, I am
happy to place her in one], entirely fails to grasp the above
argument. He simply states that Boswell's "narrative chapters"
are digressions, and that the only thing that counts are the documents.
Shaw then states that in "simple English", "adelphopoiesis"
means the "creation of brothers". I suppose Boswell
is supposed not to have noted that fact. Boswell's discussion
of what "brother" means is ignored by Shaw [Boswell
notes that "brotherhood", in English and the languages
relevant here, virtually never means "the relationship between
brothers"; notes the use of brother-sister imagery in heterosexual
lovemaking, e.g. in the Song of Songs; and, vitally, argues that
given the overwhelming conventional presentation of same-sex eroticism
as age-dissonant in antiquity, Christians would have tried to
find a word that implied equality in relationship. None of this
is, IMO, certain, but Shaw - in a very long piece - simply ignores
it in favor of a simplistic kicker about "simple English".]
I might also add that it had not been shown that any more than
*two* people could enter into this ceremony - which even Shaw
admits could create kinship - and that it is thus not assimilable
to monastic profession, adoption of siblings, or feudal oaths.
Shaw also makes faulty charges. The concluding prayer of one of
the texts Boswell prints refers to the ceremony as a "gamos".
This prayer comes immediately after the rest of the prayers translated,
but is separated by some sort of break. I agree that Boswell has
a problem here and that his task would be easier without a such
a break. Shaw merely comments "Boswell prints [this prayer]
as a if [it] were a seamless continuation of the ritual of adelphopoiesis..".
In fact Boswell points this out and, at length, discusses his
reasons for arguing that the prayer was part of the adelphopoiia
ceremony. Shaw could, legitimately, argue against Boswell's argumentation
here. Instead he merely uses the opportunity to indict Boswell's
veracity [TNR, 36].
A few other points: Shaw attacks Boswell for referring to "heterosexual
matrimony [TNR 36] , and then spends a great deal of time explaining
marriage was between different sexes [TNR 37]; Shaw refers [TNR
40] to the *55* documents that Boswell discusses as "nothing
more than a few additional texts that shed more light on a primitive
and basic power linkage between men in the ancient Mediterranean,
and the rituals attendant on its formation" [TNR 40] - repeating
his persistent mistake of seeing Boswell's book as about the ancient
world rather than the medieval. Finally summing up Shaw's case,
is the following - "But same-sex marriages forged with the
approval of the Christian church and with its rituals? No. Such
a reading is very misleading." How is this a historical critique?
Shaw seems to be envisioning a monolithic Church which decides
in a unified, or uniform, manner on what is "approved"
and what are its "official rituals". Such might be the
historic experience of Roman Catholics since Trent, but is will
not do as a description of the Church in any earlier period with
its manifold local variations.
So, contra Tom Noble, we still await a substantial critique. All
we have seen so far is substantial anxiety.
Paul Halsall
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994
From: tfn@UVA.PCMAIL.VIRGINIA.EDU
Subject: Re: advocacy scholarship
To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L
One more short rejoinder then I am out of here: I said 16 liturgies.
That these appear in some 55 MSS is a completely different point.
The orthodox have been denying not that these liturgies exist
but that they are liturgies for same-sex marriage: Again, on different
points. Sure Camille Paglia is a grandstander. That does not mean
that she is always wrong. Have you ever seen a fen gun? If you
t that much shot in the air you will surely bring some birds down.
Shaw's review deals essentially with the ancient, or introductory,
section to B's book. I think his critique of this section is fair
and, in the end, persuasive. Shaw says rather little t the rest
{f the book. Here is where Orthodox scholars are going to have
their say. As to the rather clever semantic word-games that B.
plays: He has done this in each of his last three books. First
he tells us words do not means what we always thought they did.
Then he tells us what they really mean. Then he interprets his
sources in light of his redefinition of terms. To some degree,
of course, scholars do this sort of thing all the time. It is
not always appropriate and not always persuasive. I am not persuaded.
Others may I do not find this book persuasive and I think that
some of its methods are open to question as such. Again, others
will disagree. No problem: I am not in charge of anything. By
the way, I do know the difference between the Meyendorffs so if
my last posting left this unclear I must have slipped somehow.
Sorry for all other garbage--my line is full of electronic noise
today for some reason.
Tom Noble
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994
From: Paul Halsall
Subject: Re: advocacy scholarship
To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L
Thanks for your comments.
If it reduces to "liturgies", then Boswell really only
has *one* liturgy that he has "discovered".
Your point about Boswell's methodology is well made. What he is
really saying is that traditional historiography typically *reads*
out the sort of interpretations he wishes to make. And you may
be correct that this is a sort of trick to let him say anything
he wants. But on the "fen gun" principle you applied
to Paglia, surely there are instances where you think Boswell
correct?
As to the methodology itself - a good point for discussion btw
- this is where I think charges of "paranoia" become
an issue. I have attended Greek language classes in which the
homoeroticism of much classical poetry has been ignored, on one
famous occasion in which Plato's ode to Aster was said to be "to
his girlfriend". Loeb editions blanked English translations
of parts of classical literature the editors though "improper"
for students to see. And scholars like C.S. Lewis did establish
rigid definitions of words like "agape" which are not
born out in the sources. There was, as the evidence now shows
conclusively, a "damnatio memoriae" imposed on discussion
of homoeroticism from at least the late 19th century onwards,
reaching a crescendo in the 1950s and 1960s. This period coincides
with the "scientific" discussion of the past that we
take as modern historiography. Boswell may not always hit his
target - using the gun analogy - even a rifle may hit its mark.
But I also think that to dismiss the entire approach is problematic
also.
Unlike Shaw and Paglia though, I must say that your comments do
reflect those of a scholar who has full credentials to address
the issues Boswell raises.
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 1994 10:14:28 -0400
From: Ruth Karras <rkarras@ASTRO.OCIS.TEMPLE.EDU>
Subject: reviews of Boswell
To: Multiple recipients of list MEDIEV-L
[Obligatory disclaimer: I am a friend of John Boswell, who was
my dissertation advisor. However, I have not discussed the argument
of the book with him in several years, and I have no inside information
about his meaning or intention--everything I say here is based
on my reading of it and I do not speak for him.]
I am a bit surprised to find anyone giving any credence at all
to Paglia's review. Tom--read a couple of chapters of Sexual
Personae and find out what she thinks are "advanced skills
in intellectual history and textual analysis." She has no
basis on which to question his knowledge of medieval history--my
impression from the review is that "Middle Ages" brings
two things to her mind, "courtly love" and "feudalism,"
so she criticizes him for not talking about those two things.
I do agree with her that the male bonding aspect of "feudal
loyalty" needs to be discussed, but that's not what this
book was about.
As to Shaw's review, I am not competent to evaluate wither his
or Boswell's use of Greek lexicography nor of particular Roman
writers--I leave that to someone else. I do think, though, that
Shaw quite clearly missed the boat in arguing that the ceremony
"in plain English" is a ceremony of brotherhood or fraternal
adoption. One of the main arguments of the book is that "adelphos"
and "brother" are not lexical equivalents--in the most
narrow sense they are, "a son of the same parents,"
but all the other meanings are very different. So to translate
it as "brotherhood" would be very misleading.
Let me give an analogy. I work on prostitution in the Middle Ages.
The most common word used is "meretrix," which is _always_
translated by modern scholars as prostitute, but which, I argue,
doesn't mean exactly the same thing as what we mean by prostitution
today (sex for money). Now, supposing I wished to argue that the
term "meretrix" some or most of the time actually meant
what we mean by "unwed mother," rather than what we
mean by "prostitute." (No, that's not what it means--this
is a hypothetical.) Now, suppose I was also translating a text
entitled "De Meretricibus." How do I translate the title?
If I translate it "On Prostitutes," that is the standard
dictionary definition, but I've just spent several chapters arguing
that that's not what it means. If I translate it as "On Unwed
Mothers," I am assuming what I wish to prove--I can't then
use the text as evidence for my argument. If I leave it in Latin,
I am to a certain extent abdicating my responsibility to my non-Latinate
audience. The alternataive is tofind a term that would include
both the traditional (but in my opinion erroneous) meaning and
my suggested meaning, so that my translation doesn't prejudge
the issue. I could say something like "On women who misbehave
sexually." That may be awkward but it's at least a neutral
formulation--then both I and my reader can read the text closely
and decide what kind of sexual misbehavior may be meant. And if
I also have the Latin text there, so the reader can check what
term I was translating, I think I've been a good deal less misleading
than if I translated it "On Prostitutes," which might
at first glance appear to be the meaning "in plain English."
That is what Boswell has done. He hasn't translated it as "gay
marriage" or "same-sex marriage." He has chosen
a neutral term--as Shaw admits, they were unions of some sort
between two men. He can then argue that they were quasi-marital
unions, and Shaw can argue that they weren't, but the term "unions"
itself is neutral, not tendentious. Calling it "fraternal
adoption" is, however, tendentious, although it may have
the weight of tradition behind it.
Similarly with Shaw's complaint about Boswell's use of the term
"heterosexual marriage." He says that this implies that
there was some other kind. I don't think so! It _leaves open the
possibility_ that there was some other kind. Whereas, just saying
"marriage" and _assuming_ it is always heterosexual
is an imposition of a particular ideology. This is something I
think all of us who write on issues about love, sex, marriage,
etc. have to be careful about. I know I've been guilty of saying
things like "romantic relationships" when what I mean
is "heterosexual romantic relationships"--and I think
I'm fairly sensitive to this, for a breeder :-).
Ruth Karras
Source.
From: From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU
Re: OK, So What Do People Think of Boswell's New Book?
on list MEDIEV-L MEDIEV-L%UKANVM.bitnet@vm42.cso.uiuc.edu>
This text is part of the Internet
History Sourcebooks Project. The Sourcebooks are collections of public domain and
copy-permitted texts related to all aspects of history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright.
Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational
purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No
permission is granted for commercial use.
© Paul Halsall, 2023
