Customer Reviews

Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

At the very least, Boswell deserves credit for bringing to light centuries worth of church documents some people would probably prefer to ignore or even deny the existence of. This work is scholarly and includes a huge amount of notes in their original languages. Anyone interested can read for themselves and make their own translations. The reader should fully digest Boswell's careful explanation of the immense differences between ancient and modern conceptions of and formulations of "marriage", "friendship" and "romantic love". Boswell also includes some of the ceremonies themselves. Many are remarkable for their beauty and power. If you are at all religious, this book will help you in your search to reach a humane, compassionate understanding of the beauty of all the rich permutations of love our Creator has given us.

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.

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!

Friends of mine who had been familiar with Boswell's first book, 'Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality', from its initial publication in 1980 waited impatiently for the follow-up volume. In the end, it took fourteen years to produce, and sadly, did not live up the expectations that had been given it.

Firstly, it did not in fact reveal (if such places exist, the not-always-so-hidden charge behind the disappointment) communities that had continued the practice of tolerance to same-sex couples through the last millenium within the structures of Christendom.

For part of the book he covers old ground, talking about the milieu of the Greco-Roman world, and talks about the development of the idea of marriage and liturgical practices for that. He then proceeds to give examples of liturgies which, Boswell claims, are proof that the church did recognise and bless same-sex unions. This claim is still debated, as there is no blantant 'I now pronounce you husband and husband (or wife and wife)' kinds of statements or liturgies here, but rather testimony to friendship, companionship, communal support, of a sort that is ambiguous.

While this book is important for liturgical forms and narrative discussion (although the narratives can be reinterpreted as something different from Boswell's), it failed to deliver the knock-out punch readers of the first book had been waiting for, i.e., conclusive proof the church was up to no good. Boswell does make some points worthy of attention in the debate, such as, 'The extent of early Christian hostility to same-sex eroticism has been exaggerated by modern Christians, who tend to overlook comparable Christian strictures against divorce or other common aspects of modern life also condemned by the early church, while focusing their energy and moral outrage on this particular issue.'

Boswell is interesting but far from satisfying on either side of the debate. So, after providing us with some historical framework, we must move on to more explicitly theological discussions. Boswell's contribution is an important one, in that it shows that this has been an issue with varying degrees of acceptance and controversy throughout the life of the church, and the history of society in general. It does not, however, settle anything, or satisfy either side -- it is rather more grist for the mill for both sides. An important book, but not definitive by any means.

Unfortunately, Boswell died not long after the publication of this volume, and so further clarifications, or any unpublished research of sensitive nature, will not be forthcoming.

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 States. Boswell's book is an authoritative look at the subject (and yes, please do read the foot notes), and provides not only much insight into the realities of marriage, but also fodder for countering the arguments of those who would deny two consenting adults from having a civilly recognized union. (Amusing it remains that there are more religions and religious bodies which recognize same sex marriage than there are states.) This is definitely a "scholarly" work, but still very readable and fascinating. A must-read for anybody who wants to dig deeper than bumper stickers and lawn signs.

The other reviews cover most of the issues with this book admirably. One could have appropriately, but less titilatingly, retitled the book "Unions in Pre-Modern Europe", since his study was fairly balanced between two-sex and same-sex unions. It is certainly an eye-opener for those of the "traditional" marriage hue and cry. "Traditional" marriage as we see it today was unknown until the late middle ages, although that sort of union among same-sex couples was known from the earliest. The church did not recognize marriage as a sacrament until about 800 years ago. Those today who speak of traditional marriage need to read their history to know whereof they speak. I found his writing immensely readable and enjoyable. Although I have not yet read his first work, it is certainly now on my list.

Fascinating, dense and incredibly detailed scholarly work (I think half the book is footnotes!) which compares heterosexual and same-sex pagan (i.e. non-Christian) 'marriage' rites, with heterosexual and same-sex CHRISTIAN 'marriage' rites in the early Christian church of the Roman world (that is, BEFORE the Catholic and orthodox hierarchy decided to ban such ceremonies). To fully enjoy this book is to make it a slow read over time... but well worth it for those interested in religious and/or gay rights issues.

Boswell is most famous for his 'Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality,' and this book certainly does not have so great an impact as that classic work. It is, however, a thoroughly interesting read about an equally interesting topic. Of course, Boswell is always readable, though his frequent footnotes - essential for the specialist - can easily break one's concentration.

As for the effectiveness of his argument. Boswell wisely does not assert that the ceremony in question is marriage, but he does raise a number of difficult points; the parallels to marriage are utterly unquestionable. I doubt that he establishes that same-sex marriage existed, but the ceremony is nonetheless an important element in the history of same-sex relations.

In all, this is a worthy investment, but not for the casual reader.

I couldn't disagree more with claims that this book is dry. As a student planning to become a historian focusing on homosexual history (one that is interested in the pre-1869 "gay identities" that social constructionists like to downplay), I thought this book was insightful, interesting, and an easy read. The field of gay history needs more scholars like the late Boswell.