Pierre Chaplais, Pierre Gaveston: Edward II's
Adoptive Brother, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994)
Alerted by a review in February 1996's American
Historical Review, I have just read this truly amazing book.
Chaplais attempts an inning [the obverse of "outing"]
of Edward II and Piers Gaveston. His "thesis" is that
Gaveston and Edward II were "adoptive brothers" - like
"David and Jonathan" and "Achilles and Patroclus".
Despite the apparent unanimity of chroniclers in stating that
Edward II "loved Gaveston 'immoderately'": the naming
of Edward II as a "sodomite" by others: and the death
of Edward by having a red hot poker inserted in his rectum (an
incident to which Chaplais can only refer to in the most oblique
terms), Chaplais is determined to argue that the two were not
homosexual lovers.
He cannot cite any actual evidence that the two were
adoptive brothers.
One of his arguments is that Edward had four children
- with the possibility of Edward being "bisexual" simply
being dismissed in a footnote.
It is little wonder then that J.S. Hamilton, the
recent author of a long study of Gaveston, in his overkind AHR review, remains unconvinced of Chaplais' argument.
What I find astounding (after having searched through
all the footnotes in an Oxford UP book without a bibliography) is that Chaplais apparently embarked on writing a book addressing
homosexuality equipped, apart from his undoubted philological
tools, only with his prejudices. While this is of course legitimate,
it is less than convincing to read a book on medieval [non-?]-homosexuality
which refers to no modern discussion of the topic of sexuality.
(John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality is cited for one factual note), note even Georges Duby's general
accounts. When the book evinces absolutely no awareness whatsoever
of considerations of medieval textuality, and is, to be frank,
obtuse in refusing to see Achilles and Patroclus as longstanding
homosexual types, the lack of suasion is only increased.
Chaplais does provide some interesting information
- for instance that the old English for an adoptive brother was
"wed brother" [does this mean they were joined in a
"wed-ding", I wonder?], and Hamilton assures us that
in pure diplomatics he is no ditz. But one has to wonder what
is going on here.
There are relatively few sources which state explicitly
that "X was a [inset appropriate word we might see as "homosexual"].
Yet by all accounts [Peter Damian, Alain de Lille, Bernardine
of Siena, Venetian court records], homosexual activity was well
known and reasonably widespread in locations where there were
large numbers of men. [One does not have to have a dirty mind
to see what Benedict was getting at in some parts of the Rule.]
With a limited number of figures, the evidence is personal: among
English kings, for instance, William II, Richard I, and Edward
II have all been seen as homosexual with rather good, although
not absolute, contemporary evidence. With Edward II the evidence
is about as good as it gets. Few would claim him as a hero, but
accounts of his life, character, and attitudes towards him, along
with literary material such as Chaucer's discussion of the Pardoner
and Dante's conversation with Brunetto Latini do allow us to interrogate,
if not come to definite conclusions about varying medieval concepts
of gender and sexuality.
It is sometimes said that those who engage in such
discussions are blinded by "advocacy" or "presentist"
concerns. But with Chaplais we see the reverse - a case where
a historian as so internalised apparently late Victorian notions
of appropriateness, "vileness", and "natural sexuality"
that he will, as it were, bend over backwards to avoid facing
a very different medieval world.
REPONSES TO, AND DISCUSSION OF, THIS ARTICLE
1.
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 22:00:42 CST
Sender: Medieval History MEDIEV-L@UKANVM.BITNET
From: "bachr001@maroon.tc.umn.edu"
Are you arguing that Edward II was homosexual and
not bisexual? It is my impression from reading the penitentials
and the canon law that there was also a great deal of 'bestiality'
going on as well during the MA. In short, it would seem that not
a few people were omni-sexual. Any information about
Edward II and the sheep?
2.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 02:05:20 -0500
Sender: Medieval History MEDIEV-L@UKANVM.BITNET
From: Paul Halsall HALSALL@MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU
Prof. Bachrach,
In fact I vacillate between a willingness to accept
that modern western terms for sexuality are applicable in the
past, and a more pomo [!] opinion that no-one in the past identified
themselves by any particular sexuality. [Sometimes I am even willing
to blame the whole "identity" problem on Rousseau.]
While there may by some minor room for doubt, I think
the call on Edward II is pretty clear that he was for want of
a better word "queer". And, while having one charming
young man as a constant companion
may constitute nothing more than gossip, having two
[Gaveston and Dispenser], seems as another married man with children,
[Oscar Wilde] might have said, to go beyond mere luck.
In fact the modern literature on this sort of topic
is remarkably self-reflective ( John Boswell is not typical in
his assumption that "there were always homosexuals").
The whole situation in which Edward married the a woman and had
four children by her, but was also universally thought of as a
sodomite [although he was never called "puta" in the
streets like one slightly later Spanish king] does deserve some
cultural unpacking. But this is not what the book in questions
does. The book takes issues of sexuality as intrinsically unproblematic,
and relies on diplomatics to "exonerate" Edward II of
the "charge" (sic) of homosexuality.
The entire book is an exercise in obtuse erudition,
which is evidently not, as my old supervisor John Meyendorff used
to opine, a sin particular to Byzantinists.
3.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 12:11:02 -0500
Sender: Gay-Lesbian Medieval Studies Discussion Group
MEDGAY-L@KSUVM.BITNET
From: Baltasar Fra-Molinero bframoli@abacus.bates.edu
I agree wit Paul Halsall's review and protest about
the book on Edward II and Gaveston. My concern is about OUP and
its different standards for different topics. As if investigation
in homosexuality need not be held to the same standards, say,
as Petrarchan love poetry. Who were the in house, out house editors
of the book? They should be held accountable too.
4.
Sender: Gay-Lesbian Medieval Studies Discussion Group
MEDGAY-L@KSUVM.BITNET
From: "Ruth m. Karras" <rkarras@nimbus.ocis.temple.edu>
Subject: Adoptive Brothers (was: "inning"
of Gaveston)
I haven't read Chaplais' book, but I did read the
review Paul referred to, and it made me think immediately of the
controversy over Boswell's Same-Sex Unions, where Boswell
suggests that what people have taken as a ceremony of adoptive
brotherhood was more like a same-sex marriage ceremony. Now Chaplais
is trying to take it in the other direction!
What I wanted to comment on, however, was the terminology
"wed brother." Perhaps someone who is more of a philologist
than I can help here, but I'm fairly certain that in the high
MA this would not have had any connotation of "wedded"
as in "married." The root means "to wager or to
pledge." Thus a "wedding" is a "pledging."
(as in the OE text Wifmannes Beweddunge.) IN Chaucer's Shipman's
Tale, when the wife tells her husband "Ye shal my joly body
have to wedde" she means "as a pledge." So my guess
would be that "wed brother" means something like "sworn
brother" and has no erotic connotation.
Which is not to deny that Edward II and Gaveston
were lovers; just a footnote.
Ruth Mazo Karras rkarras@nimbus.ocis.temple.edu
5.
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:04:57 -0500
Sender: Gay-Lesbian Medieval Studies Discussion Group
MEDGAY-L@KSUVM.BITNET
From: "Gregory Jordan (ENG)" jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
Just the mention of that abominable "historical
epic" that won at the Oscars is disturbing!
Well, anyway - about Edward II, the real one not
Mel Gibson's, I'm perfectly satisfied that the relationship between
Edward and Piers was erotic, but I don't think the manner of Edward's
death can be used without care as proof of his sexual orientation.
We really aren't sure Edward was murdered, and the earliest sources
tell us that the "poker up the ass" was the last in
a series of attempts (crushing his internal organs from his stomach,
etc.) to kill the king without leaving an external mark. It may
seem more than coincidental that it seems to parallel mockingly
and viciously his preferred sexual practice, but perhaps that's
just homophobic conditioning running away with us (like the usual
reading of the Sodom and Gomorrah story).
Also, the claim about adoptive brothers fits in very
closely to what Boswell suggested was a formal erotic union in
his Same-Sex Unions - does Chaplais take this into account?
About Old English wedbrothor - yes, from wedd = pledge
(in almost all senses), and dowry; and weddian = pledge, become
engaged, betroth, marry. Now I'm going to have to scan the OE
Corpus to see how that gets used -I'm very curious.
As for Chaucer's Pardoner - as much as I would like
to be convinced, and although I still have some suspicions, I
don't believe Chaucer intended to portray the Pardoner as a man
who is attracted to other men. Lee Patterson recently gave a speech
in which he assured his audience that the Pardoner was a "sodomite"
whose criticism was linked to usury. Well, Chaucer doesn't call
the Pardoner a "sodomite," nor a "usurer"
as I remember. And he distinctly comments on the Pardoner's interest
in having sex with women (a joly wenche in every toun). The Pardoner
is effeminate in his voice and appearance, but the connection
between that and homosexuality is not transhistorical - in fact,
it is sometimes especially connected with heterosexuality. Men
who are too attracted to women eventually start acting like them
- so the theory goes, I guess. The reference to the Pardoner as
seeming ("I trowe") like a "gelding" or a
"mare" are in connection with his lack of facial hair,
voice, and overall effeminate behavior. If he really had no testicles,
one wonders why the host threatens to cut them off ("Lat
kutte hem off").
Greg Jordan
jordan@chum.cas.usf.edu
Source.
From: original Paul Halsall, 3/26/96
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, 1996, 2023
