Both highly praised and intensely controversial, this brilliant book produces dramatic evidence that at one time the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches not only sanctioned unions between partners of the same sex, but sanctified them--in ceremonies strikingly similar to heterosexual marriage ceremonies.
| ||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
The acceptance and sanctification of homosexual relations in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches during Medieval Europe are examined in this scholarly work.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.
From Library Journal
Not since Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1981) have Christians of all creeds confronted a work that makes them look so closely at their notions of the relationship between the church and its gay and lesbian believers. Diligently researched and documented, this immensely scholarly work covers everything from the "paired" saints of Perpetua and Felicitas and Serge and Bacchus to lesbian transvestites in Albania. Examining evidence that the early church celebrated a same-sex nuptial liturgy, Boswell compares both Christian same-sex unions to Christian heterosexual unions and non-Christian same-sex unions to non-Christian heterosexual unions. Appendixes contain, among other things, translations and transcriptions of cited documents. Whether or not minds are changed on the matter will probably fall along sectarian lines, according to current attitudes on homosexuality. However, the work will provoke dialog. A groundbreaking book for academic, public, and theological libraries.
--Lee Arnold, Historical Society of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
--Lee Arnold, Historical Society of Pennsylvania., Philadelphia
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
66 of 71 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
People just don't want to consider that what they believe to be true might not be.
August 24, 2008
Format:Paperback
In reviewing other reviews of this book, it's apparent that those approving of it / objecting to it are mostly people who approve of / object to same-sex marriage. Which tells us little about the book's veracity or validity.
There are no truly neutral observers, simply variations in the degree to which one is prejudiced toward or against a particular position. This book is so heavily footnoted and appendixed, and Boswell seems to be at such pains to clarify exactly what he is and is not claiming, and why, that it is hard to believe he is not being intellectually honest, despite the fact he had a vested interest in promoting same-sex marriage. In short, Boswell gives at least the illusion of objectivity. This is enhanced by the fact that he builds his argument over many chapters, showing the social context into which church-authorized same-sex unions fit, rather than presenting documentation on just the unions -- a point which most of his detractors conveniently overlook.
The bias -- and carelessness -- of some reviewers is blatant. Kevin Davis states "...Boswell argues that rituals for the binding of two males (in Eastern Christendom) between the 12th and 16th centuries is evidence of the support for same-sex marriages in earlier Christianity. This is yet another example of a scholar misinterpreting historical facts in order to serve an agenda."
Anyone who paid attention while reading this book knows that the preceding statement is mostly untrue. (For example, the rituals existed for over 1000 years, and were in use in other parts of Cristendom.) Boswell explicitly states, repeatedly, that these same-sex unions were not, as far as the ceremony itself went, marriage ceremonies (which is why the book has the title it does), and he repeatedly shows how they differ (though the difference is not huge). He does, however, draw a distinction between what is written in a ceremony, and how people perceive the ceremony, suggesting that "the populace" might have viewed the union as a marriage (though not necessarily with a sexual element).
"matt" states "I would suggest that we all need to be careful in reading into texts and history what would make us feel better about ourselves." Agreed. But what about reading text and history based on what we currently perceive as true or false, right or wrong? matt conveniently forgets that "the church" systematically persecuted homosexual men and women for a thousand years -- and he's surprised when some of them are happy to find a bit of history that indicates the church at one time supported (if probably only unintentionally) their affectional preferences?
Which brings us to the issue of the essentialist / constructivist argument. Throughout the book, Boswell (it seems to me) leans in the constructivist direction, by attempting to interpret everything in the context of how the people of the time would have seen or valued it. This is far from trying to force a "modern" homo / hetero perspective on the analysis, which many critics seem to accuse Boswell of doing. (They, of course, do the same thing, but from "the other side".)
Those disagreeing with Boswell do so primarily by grossly misreading him, by taking his arguments out of context, or out of simple prejudice. They don't want to believe his interpretation might be correct.
There is another set of "facts" not discussed (or even mentioned) in this book. One is that homosexual practice between consenting adult males (I'm deliberately omitting paederasty, the love of young men, violation of slaves & prisoners, etc) is not unheard-of historically (qv, the pagan Celts). A berdache was often married to a man of the tribe (see Ruth Benedict), who presumably enjoyed sodomizing another male.
I don't believe Boswell is guilty of stirring up a hornet's next by means of bad scholarship or specious reasoning. He doesn't seem to be indulging in either.
As (the non-gay) friendly Professor Peter Schickele likes to say... "Truth is truth. You can't have opinions about truth." Boswell's interpretation of the historical evidence is almost certainly correct.
There are no truly neutral observers, simply variations in the degree to which one is prejudiced toward or against a particular position. This book is so heavily footnoted and appendixed, and Boswell seems to be at such pains to clarify exactly what he is and is not claiming, and why, that it is hard to believe he is not being intellectually honest, despite the fact he had a vested interest in promoting same-sex marriage. In short, Boswell gives at least the illusion of objectivity. This is enhanced by the fact that he builds his argument over many chapters, showing the social context into which church-authorized same-sex unions fit, rather than presenting documentation on just the unions -- a point which most of his detractors conveniently overlook.
The bias -- and carelessness -- of some reviewers is blatant. Kevin Davis states "...Boswell argues that rituals for the binding of two males (in Eastern Christendom) between the 12th and 16th centuries is evidence of the support for same-sex marriages in earlier Christianity. This is yet another example of a scholar misinterpreting historical facts in order to serve an agenda."
Anyone who paid attention while reading this book knows that the preceding statement is mostly untrue. (For example, the rituals existed for over 1000 years, and were in use in other parts of Cristendom.) Boswell explicitly states, repeatedly, that these same-sex unions were not, as far as the ceremony itself went, marriage ceremonies (which is why the book has the title it does), and he repeatedly shows how they differ (though the difference is not huge). He does, however, draw a distinction between what is written in a ceremony, and how people perceive the ceremony, suggesting that "the populace" might have viewed the union as a marriage (though not necessarily with a sexual element).
"matt" states "I would suggest that we all need to be careful in reading into texts and history what would make us feel better about ourselves." Agreed. But what about reading text and history based on what we currently perceive as true or false, right or wrong? matt conveniently forgets that "the church" systematically persecuted homosexual men and women for a thousand years -- and he's surprised when some of them are happy to find a bit of history that indicates the church at one time supported (if probably only unintentionally) their affectional preferences?
Which brings us to the issue of the essentialist / constructivist argument. Throughout the book, Boswell (it seems to me) leans in the constructivist direction, by attempting to interpret everything in the context of how the people of the time would have seen or valued it. This is far from trying to force a "modern" homo / hetero perspective on the analysis, which many critics seem to accuse Boswell of doing. (They, of course, do the same thing, but from "the other side".)
Those disagreeing with Boswell do so primarily by grossly misreading him, by taking his arguments out of context, or out of simple prejudice. They don't want to believe his interpretation might be correct.
There is another set of "facts" not discussed (or even mentioned) in this book. One is that homosexual practice between consenting adult males (I'm deliberately omitting paederasty, the love of young men, violation of slaves & prisoners, etc) is not unheard-of historically (qv, the pagan Celts). A berdache was often married to a man of the tribe (see Ruth Benedict), who presumably enjoyed sodomizing another male.
I don't believe Boswell is guilty of stirring up a hornet's next by means of bad scholarship or specious reasoning. He doesn't seem to be indulging in either.
As (the non-gay) friendly Professor Peter Schickele likes to say... "Truth is truth. You can't have opinions about truth." Boswell's interpretation of the historical evidence is almost certainly correct.
38 of 47 people found the following review helpful
By A Customer
Format:Paperback
After reading this fine book, I wished that there was some way I could thank Boswell for such a revelation. Knowing that this would be impossible since he passed away, there is no way to thank him, but simply to praise his work, and tell other people about it. This study in same-sex unions performed throughout premodern European history debunks the notiont that marriage was only performed between a male and a female. The book presents astounding facts and information that has been suppressed, or misinterpreted by homophobe bias. In the appendices of the book, there are actual transcriptions of the same-sex marriage ceremonies used, in the vernacular, and translated by Boswell into English. This study was made all the more fascinating by the wealth of footnotes. When Boswell came across an ambiguous word that could mean many things in different languages, he includes that specific word written in its own language in the text. The appearance of these arcane languages in the text were beautiful, and one could call them "eye candy." There was writing from ancient Greece, some Slavic languages, and Hebrew. This novel is a major contribution to European history, and history in general, and being a college student and a future professional historian myself, I am glad to know that Boswell's presence graced the field of history, and has brought the craft of history to new heights.
23 of 30 people found the following review helpful
By John P. Day
Format:Paperback
The "but" is well expressed in the last two reviews here. The issue revolves around a specific translation question, and it's a debatable one.
Father Kurt's review comes closest to mine. It takes careful reading,and it has some significant problems, but it does present the issues fairly, and many of the objections made in recent reviews are addressed in the book's text. It may well be arguing a debatable proposition, but it is not "intellectual claptrap". Dr. Boswell makes a game effort to argue that his documents are speaking of something more significant than proerty transfers or normal "friendships". It's quite another thing as to whether he succeeds.
Evaluating this book as a historian, I fond myself at a loss for the lingustic skills to make much of a judgement on most of his texts. His argument, if he could maintsin the linguistic argument in the context in which the documents were produced, otherwise is well put. To repeat, it is not "claptrap".
However, there was one exception where I do have some ability to assess one of his documents: an excerpt in Latin from Giraldus Cambriensis' "History and Topography of Ireland".
Dr. Boswell lays out the Latin text, then gives his translation, and then explains his justification for translating it in the way it does. All of which is quite proper. I had a run at the Latin myself, and while, yes, using some standard definitons, you CAN translate it the way he does, it works equally well as a rite for the formal allaince of families or kinship groups. Since the social structure of Ireland at the time was based almost entirely on kinship groups, that's the way scholars of Irish history would translate it, rather than as a form of personal union between two people. Charitably, one might suppose that 12th century Ireland was not familiar ground for him judging from his other work, it wasn't), so while he seems to have misunderstood the context here, I wouldn't say that he got it wrong elsewhere. I did find a factual error in one of his footnotes (there is another modern translation of which he was apparently unaware), although it was the type of slip which happens fairly easily.
Simply for that reason I've given, I would not take this book as more than advancing an ingenious hypothesis, which remains at best unproven. Still, it is worthy of consideration...and as far as scholarly works go, it's pretty readable. That in itself is a virtue!
Father Kurt's review comes closest to mine. It takes careful reading,and it has some significant problems, but it does present the issues fairly, and many of the objections made in recent reviews are addressed in the book's text. It may well be arguing a debatable proposition, but it is not "intellectual claptrap". Dr. Boswell makes a game effort to argue that his documents are speaking of something more significant than proerty transfers or normal "friendships". It's quite another thing as to whether he succeeds.
Evaluating this book as a historian, I fond myself at a loss for the lingustic skills to make much of a judgement on most of his texts. His argument, if he could maintsin the linguistic argument in the context in which the documents were produced, otherwise is well put. To repeat, it is not "claptrap".
However, there was one exception where I do have some ability to assess one of his documents: an excerpt in Latin from Giraldus Cambriensis' "History and Topography of Ireland".
Dr. Boswell lays out the Latin text, then gives his translation, and then explains his justification for translating it in the way it does. All of which is quite proper. I had a run at the Latin myself, and while, yes, using some standard definitons, you CAN translate it the way he does, it works equally well as a rite for the formal allaince of families or kinship groups. Since the social structure of Ireland at the time was based almost entirely on kinship groups, that's the way scholars of Irish history would translate it, rather than as a form of personal union between two people. Charitably, one might suppose that 12th century Ireland was not familiar ground for him judging from his other work, it wasn't), so while he seems to have misunderstood the context here, I wouldn't say that he got it wrong elsewhere. I did find a factual error in one of his footnotes (there is another modern translation of which he was apparently unaware), although it was the type of slip which happens fairly easily.
Simply for that reason I've given, I would not take this book as more than advancing an ingenious hypothesis, which remains at best unproven. Still, it is worthy of consideration...and as far as scholarly works go, it's pretty readable. That in itself is a virtue!
Most Recent Customer Reviews
1.0 out of 5 stars
A False and Misleading book
This book really is a load of rubbish.
Boswell claims that the Orthodox Christian Church used to perform same sex weddings but he bases this on the mediaeval ceremony of... Read more
Boswell claims that the Orthodox Christian Church used to perform same sex weddings but he bases this on the mediaeval ceremony of... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Lenore
5.0 out of 5 stars
Makes you wonder how religion has gotten where it is today on the...
This book was the second I read by John Boswell. It make me rethink everything my religious upbringing had taught me. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Larry Meidinger
5.0 out of 5 stars
Same Sex Unions In Premodern Europe
Solid historic research that is as fresh today as it was 16 years ago when it was published. Any one who wants to speak about Gay marriage either for or against should have to read... Read more
Published on October 2, 2010 by gayhist
5.0 out of 5 stars
Monumentally important work for those interested in 'marriage' issues...
Fascinating, dense and incredibly detailed scholarly work (I think half the book is footnotes!) which compares heterosexual and same-sex pagan (i.e. Read more
Published on July 5, 2010 by BRIAN A. O'DELL
5.0 out of 5 stars
Dare to Learn!
I've been recommending this book since it was first published, and certainly have not stopped as the question of recognizing same-sex marriage is still at issue across the United... Read more
Published on May 1, 2010 by Deborah Levinson
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great Book for Same-sex couples planning a ceremony!
This book disputes the assertion that marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman. Originally, heterosexual marriage was mostly arranged by families for money and power... Read more
Published on March 19, 2008 by Under the Redwoods
3.0 out of 5 stars
In search of a word
This book illustrates the importance of proper words for the proper functioning of society. It also brings to mind the raging modern debate about the word "marriage:" Those who... Read more
Published on August 31, 2007 by John Gueriguian
5.0 out of 5 stars
Of Boswell, Timidity and Denial anent History,
Messrs.: Some reviewers' titles, when combined with their texts, are remarkably suggestive of Freudian slips with regard to what is seemingly in their respective minds, and reveal... Read more
Published on May 13, 2006 by Edwardian II, a Reviewer
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Work of Surpassing Scholarship
Potential Reader: If you are interested in historical realities, fact and not bias, truth, and same-sex studies, then you need to read everything that John Boswell has written in... Read more
Published on February 27, 2006 by Edwardian
1.0 out of 5 stars
Tendentious Claptrap from Boswell
The whole argument of this book revolves around the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the words "adelphopoiesis" and "adelphopoieia". Read more
Published on November 10, 2005 by Pete
Citations (learn more)
This book cites 100
books:
See all 100 books this book cites
100
books
cite this book:
See all 100 books citing this book
- Kindness of Strangers by John Boswell on 7 pages
- The Roman Family (Ancient Society and History) by Suzanne Dixon on page 32, page 33, and page 219
- Book of Common Prayer (1979, Personal Size Economy, Black) by The Episcopal Church on page 209, Back Matter (1), and Back Matter (2)
- Ethnological sources of the Christian marriage ceremony by Anne Schwerdtfeger on page 36, page 162, and page 213
- History of the Byzantine State by George Ostrogorsky on page 245, and page 251
See all 100 books this book cites
- Getting Medieval: Sexualities and Communities, Pre- and Postmodern (Series Q) by Carolyn Dinshaw on 5 pages
- Sexuality and the Christian Body: Their Way into the Triune God by Eugene F. Rogers Jr. on 5 pages
- Theology and Sexuality: Classic and Contemporary Readings by Eugene F. Rogers Jr. on 4 pages
- Catholic Identity: Balancing Reason, Faith, and Power by Michele Dillon on 4 pages
- Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (The Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and Society) by Bernadette J. Brooten in Front Matter, page 6, and page 345
See all 100 books citing this book
Books on Related Topics
(learn more)
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Listmania!
|
|
