Boswell on Same-Sex Unions Part II
Deerboy67
>
>First let me say that Boswell's work was almost universally
>accaimed by the gay scholoarly community in 1994,
>shortly after it was released. It was only after it was
>closely studied that people found inconsistancies in the work.
Actually, it was acclaimed and criticized by both gay and straight scholars,
both before, during, and after 1994. Even Paul Hassal, who you cite below,
severely chastizes those who make this "fallacious claim."
>A study of the different reviews of the Boswell work, by a gay
>man who is obvious really would like Boswell's view of history
>to be true, but is having to face reality is at:
>http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html
This is Paul Hassel's page. Contrary to the impression you give, he's actually
pretty generous to Boswell, and rather harsh on his debunkers. He refers to
Same-Sex Unions as "A groundbreaking study."
>If you are really interested in the subject of adelphopoiesis,
>he and I would strongly suggest you read:
>Prof. Claudia Rapp, "Ritual Brotherhood in Byzantium", Traditio 52
>(1997), 285-326
A review that Hassel himself debunks!! Again, I have to wonder if you even
read, or understand, the citations you give in support of your position. It
seems rather dishonest to make outrageous claims and then use as support for
such claims, sources that conclude that exact opposite of what you state. When
you engage in such tactics, it reflects poorly on your argument.
>Here's another view:
>The Washington Post, July 17 1994
>Review of John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern
>Europe by Camille Paglia.
Pagelia doesn't even understand what Boswell argues. She attributes positions
to him that he himself doesn't take in the book, She simplifies issues that
Boswell treats in a more complex manner. As an example, note she claims,
"Boswell's thesis-that homosexual marriages were sanctioned and routinely
conducted by the medieval Catholic Church..."
She uses the word "marriage." Yet Boswell uses the phrase "same-sex unions,"
and goes to great pains in declaring that these can't be seen as equivalent to
modern day marriages--especially since heterosexual marriages weren't even
equivalent to modern day marriages.
>Boswell
>states that Same-Sex Unions is directed toward "readers with
>no particular expertise in any of the specialties" in which he
>claims "mastery." But no one without special knowledge could
>be expected to absorb, or even comfortably read, a text so
>crammed with labyrinthine footnotes and ostentatiously
>untransliterated extracts from ancient Greek and Old Church
>Slavonic.
This is a rather dishonest argument. First of all, Boswell doesn't "claim
mastery." By virtue of his position in academia, he is considered a master on
this subject. Quite simply, he has the appropriate credentials.
Second, he claims to write for both readers with no expertise as well as the
specialist. That's why he included the footnotes, so that those specialists
who are interested in them, can read them. This is pretty standard for real
scholars. It's a bit scary that Paglia isn't aware of this, and it raises some
red flags as to her ability to perform and understand scholarship. I can only
imagine what Paglia would have said about Boswell had he not included so many
footnotes. She would have attacked him as shoddy.
>The credibility of Boswell's book rests on three points. First is
>the authenticity of the medieval manuscripts containing the
>disputed liturgies, to whose existence in European archives
>Boswell says he was alerted by "a correspondent who prefers
>not to be named." Second is the accuracy of translation of
>those manuscripts. Third is the initerpretation of the texts.
Fourth: How some people during the time they were written understood the
ceremonies. Boswell provides some rather stunning examples that support his
position. It's also interesting to note that the church later burned people at
the stake for engaging in such ceremonies. Seems kind of odd that they would
oppose so severely those just wanting to be friends, unless there was a lot
more to it.
Paul Hassal, who you cite in support of your position, even though he
contradicts your opinion, offers a severe critique of crtics like Paglia. It
can be found here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrevdisc-kennedy1.html
--
~Little Deer
"That's icky to infinity."
`The Tic
Bill Nelson
>
> >Bill Nelson writes:
> >
> >First let me say that Boswell's work was almost universally
> >accaimed by the gay scholoarly community in 1994,
> >shortly after it was released. It was only after it was
> >closely studied that people found inconsistancies in the work.
>
> Actually, it was acclaimed and criticized by both gay and straight scholars,
> both before, during, and after 1994. Even Paul Hassal, who you cite below,
> severely chastizes those who make this "fallacious claim."
OK
>
> >A study of the different reviews of the Boswell work, by a gay
> >man who is obvious really would like Boswell's view of history
> >to be true, but is having to face reality is at:
> >http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html
>
> This is Paul Hassel's page. Contrary to the impression you give, he's actually
> pretty generous to Boswell, and rather harsh on his debunkers. He refers to
> Same-Sex Unions as "A groundbreaking study."
>
I would also say it is a groundbreaking theory. However I don't think
(and Paul Hassel seems to indicate the same) that same sex union
was proven, historically, by Boswell. Since it was
his theory, it was his to prove (or try to get others to prove).
> >If you are really interested in the subject of adelphopoiesis,
> >he and I would strongly suggest you read:
> >Prof. Claudia Rapp, "Ritual Brotherhood in Byzantium", Traditio 52
> >(1997), 285-326
>
> A review that Hassel himself debunks!! Again, I have to wonder if you even
> read, or understand, the citations you give in support of your position. It
> seems rather dishonest to make outrageous claims and then use as support for
> such claims, sources that conclude that exact opposite of what you state. When
> you engage in such tactics, it reflects poorly on your argument.
Interesting reaction. It is the exact place that Hassel recommends
one start. I don't think he 'debunks' her, he only
is 'not entirely persuaded by Prof. Rapp's article.'
He concludes:
'In short, I think Prof. Rapp's article is the best thing available on
adelphopoiesis, but it has not ended the discussions. '
So, I would repeat: If you are really interested in the subject
of adelphopoiesis, he and I would strongly suggest you read:
Prof. Claudia Rapp, "Ritual Brotherhood in Byzantium", Traditio 52
(1997), 285-326
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-bos.html
>
> >Here's another view:
> >The Washington Post, July 17 1994
> >Review of John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern
> >Europe by Camille Paglia.
>
> Pagelia doesn't even understand what Boswell argues. She attributes positions
> to him that he himself doesn't take in the book, She simplifies issues that
> Boswell treats in a more complex manner. As an example, note she claims,
> "Boswell's thesis-that homosexual marriages were sanctioned and routinely
> conducted by the medieval Catholic Church..."
>
> She uses the word "marriage." Yet Boswell uses the phrase "same-sex unions,"
> and goes to great pains in declaring that these can't be seen as equivalent to
> modern day marriages--especially since heterosexual marriages weren't even
> equivalent to modern day marriages.
I think she makes the same mistakes many make on both sides, in calling
what Boswell was talking about marriages.
...
>
> Fourth: How some people during the time they were written understood the
> ceremonies. Boswell provides some rather stunning examples that support his
> position.
> It's also interesting to note that the church later burned people at
> the stake for engaging in such ceremonies. Seems kind of odd that they would
> oppose so severely those just wanting to be friends, unless there was a lot
> more to it.
I think the ceremonies were what we in the West would today call 'blood
brother'
ceremonies. I don't know of anyone being burned for partaking in
such ceremonies. Do you have references I can read to be
better informed in this?
>
> Paul Hassal, who you cite in support of your position, even though he
> contradicts your opinion, offers a severe critique of crtics like Paglia. It
> can be found here:
>
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrevdisc-kennedy1.html
>
He wrote that in 1995 and it is a criticism on
Kennedy and Kemp. He makes a very good point that
Kennedy and Kemp are approaching this as politicians,
not as strictly academics. Personally, I do not
buy into Paglia's critique but included her
critique because she was a political and academic figure usually
representing a more liberal view. I think
Boswell's theory of same sex union as a 'marriage rite'
or as anything but a rite like that of 'blood brother'
has not been proven and a lot of problems have been pointed
out in it since 1995. That Prof. Hassal still is very appreciative
to Boswell but has an open mind about this is obvious from his work:
"The general consensus, despite the viciousness of some of the attacks
on
Boswell, is that he did not prove the strongest version of
his case. In other words the evidence has not been brought
forward which demonstrates unequivocally that same-sex marriages,
understood by all as exactly equivalent to heterosexual marriages,
were endorsed by central Church authorities in Eastern or Western
Christendom. "
"But this does not mean that Boswell's work can be dismissed. He has
penetrated
the barrier of suppression and silence surrounding a set of ceremonies
which do
in fact seem to have been used by homosexual couples as a way of
obtaining some
Church sanction for their relationships. It also seems certain that in
some
areas and at some times, such unions were understood
as such by the communities involved. "
'Lesbian and Gay Marriage through History and Culture'
by Paul Halsall, Ver.2.1 June 1, 1996
http://www.bway.net/~halsall/lgbh/lgbh-marriage.html
I don't think, btw, that I have seen where it has been shown that
these ceremonies were used as a vehicle for homosexual couples
to gain church acceptance. Maybe I missed something
and you can point to it for my reference.
take care,
bill
Fenris
<bnelson4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> This is Paul Hassel's page. Contrary to the impression you give, he's
actually
>> pretty generous to Boswell, and rather harsh on his debunkers. He refers to
>> Same-Sex Unions as "A groundbreaking study."
>>
>
>I would also say it is a groundbreaking theory.
Really. You have also impugned Boswell's integrity as a scholar, implying
that he wrote untruths as propaganda for ideological purposes, knowing
that he was about to die. Says more about you than him.
>I think the ceremonies were what we in the West would today call 'blood
brother' ceremonies.
Which are performed where and by whom? The only context that comes to my
mind is in cowboy-and-Indian play by small children.
> Personally, I do not buy into Paglia's critique...
Too bad you didn't have the integrity to say that when you posted.
>... but included her critique because she was a political and academic
figure usually representing a more liberal view.
Apparently you don't know her very well. She is a rabid homophobe, a Rush
Limbaugh wannabe.
>I don't think, btw, that I have seen where it has been shown that
>these ceremonies were used as a vehicle for homosexual couples
>to gain church acceptance.
They weren't. The couples were already accepted. The ceremonies were
performed within the context of Christianity.
You might want to spend some time in Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth"
and learn to distinguish between marriage as a moral insitution and
marriage as a spiritual practice. There's a nice quote in there, also,
about people who spend their time thinking a lot about sin being sinners.
--
To send friendly e-mail, replace "nospam" with "ttowne1"
and "emptymind" with "mindspring.
Bill Nelson
>
> In article <3C525AE7...@hotmail.com>, Bill Nelson
> <bnelson4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> This is Paul Hassel's page. Contrary to the impression you give, he's
> actually
> >> pretty generous to Boswell, and rather harsh on his debunkers. He refers to
> >> Same-Sex Unions as "A groundbreaking study."
> >>
> >
> >I would also say it is a groundbreaking theory.
>
> Really. You have also impugned Boswell's integrity as a scholar, implying
> that he wrote untruths as propaganda for ideological purposes, knowing
> that he was about to die. Says more about you than him.
No, I said I did not know what he wrote what he wrote. Little Deer
said he did it because he was suppose to get into 'ground-breaking'
areas. I agreed it was a groundbreaking theory.
>
> >I think the ceremonies were what we in the West would today call 'blood
> brother' ceremonies.
>
> Which are performed where and by whom? The only context that comes to my
> mind is in cowboy-and-Indian play by small children.
>
> > Personally, I do not buy into Paglia's critique...
>
> Too bad you didn't have the integrity to say that when you posted.
And thankfully, I did eventually :)
>
> >... but included her critique because she was a political and academic
> figure usually representing a more liberal view.
>
> Apparently you don't know her very well. She is a rabid homophobe, a Rush
> Limbaugh wannabe.
What I have read I would say she was a libertarian....you are correct in
that I have not made a study of her writings.
>
> >I don't think, btw, that I have seen where it has been shown that
> >these ceremonies were used as a vehicle for homosexual couples
> >to gain church acceptance.
>
> They weren't. The couples were already accepted. The ceremonies were
> performed within the context of Christianity.
You might be interested in this quote from Paul Halsall:
"In 1994 John Boswell published a book - Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern
Europe (New York: Villard, 1994) which
claimed, essentially, that the adelphopoiia rite known to have been used
in Orthodox and Greek rite Catholic Churches
constituted, in usage at least, a form of ecclesiastical blessing for
homosexual unions."
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html
> You might want to spend some time in Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth"
> and learn to distinguish between marriage as a moral insitution and
> marriage as a spiritual practice.
Marriage is both.
> There's a nice quote in there, also,
> about people who spend their time thinking a lot about sin being sinners.
I usually like Joseph Campbell, but I don't like this reference being
used
to shut people up from speaking out against sin.
You seem to be saying that if we speak against sin we are sinners so we
should just let it be. Real cute way of shutting people up so sin can
be accepted as normal. This is why the silent majority is so silent,
they
don't want to be accused of anything and just left alone....and they
wonder
why the society is do depraved.
bill
Bill Nelson
correction:
> > Really. You have also impugned Boswell's integrity as a scholar, implying
> > that he wrote untruths as propaganda for ideological purposes, knowing
> > that he was about to die. Says more about you than him.
>
> No, I said I did not know WHY he wrote what he wrote. Little Deer
Deerboy67
>Bill Nelson writes:
>I would also say it is a groundbreaking theory. However I don't think
>(and Paul Hassel seems to indicate the same) that same sex union
>was proven, historically, by Boswell.
Incorrect, the ceremonies did exist. No one doubts this. The question the
seems to matter to most people is were they sexual, and if so, did the Catholic
hierarchy know this? Boswell can't answer either with absolute certainly, and
he admits to this in his book. He does provide some eyewitness accounts that
demonstrate that some people back them understood them as sexual
.> I don't think he 'debunks' her, he only
>is 'not entirely persuaded by Prof. Rapp's article.'
I was being harsh on purpose to mimic your tone against Boswell. Neither were
accurate.
>I think the ceremonies were what we in the West would today call 'blood
>brother'
>ceremonies. I don't know of anyone being burned for partaking in
>such ceremonies. Do you have references I can read to be
>better informed in this?
Yes, I recommend Boswell's book, which you said you read. He quotes an
eyewitness to one such "blood-brother" ceremony. "Two males married each other
at Mass, with the same ceremonies we use for our marriages, taking Communion
together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate
together. Roman experts said that since sex between male and female could be
legitimate only within marriage, it had seemed equally fair to them to
authorize ceremonies and mysteries of the church." The source goes on to
report the church later burned those to death those involved in the ceremony.
>>
>> Paul Hassal, who you cite in support of your position, even though he
>> contradicts your opinion, offers a severe critique of crtics like Paglia.
>It
>> can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrevdisc-kennedy1.html
>>
>
>He wrote that in 1995 and it is a criticism on
>Kennedy and Kemp.
Correct, I didn't say it was in response to Paglia. It's similar to it though.
> He makes a very good point that
>Kennedy and Kemp are approaching this as politicians,
>not as strictly academics.
As with Paglia, who doesn't have qualifications as a Medievalist.
> Personally, I do not
>buy into Paglia's critique but included her
>critique because she was a political and academic figure usually
>representing a more liberal view.
That's news to me.
>I don't think, btw, that I have seen where it has been shown that
>these ceremonies were used as a vehicle for homosexual couples
>to gain church acceptance.
It depends on what you mean by Church acceptance--that's Halsall's whole point.
If you mean the Pope--it hasn't been shown. Nor does Boswell claim it has.
If you mean something more decentralized, such as a priest here and there, then
Boswell has made what Halsall would call his "weaker argument," but which
actually is his entire argument (No disrespect to Halsall intended. He's a
great scholar, and you should trust him over anything I say.)
--
Little Deer
`Deerboy
Deerboy67
>I usually like Joseph Campbell, but I don't like this reference being
>used
>to shut people up from speaking out against sin.
Agreed. I prefer Jesus's quote on the same subject. Paul has some good things
to say on this subject as well (I rarely concede that Paul had anything useful
to say). Perhaps you're familar with both.
--
Little Deer
`Deerboy
Fenris
<bnelson4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Really. You have also impugned Boswell's integrity as a scholar, implying
>> that he wrote untruths as propaganda for ideological purposes, knowing
>> that he was about to die. Says more about you than him.
>
>No, I said I did not know what he wrote what he wrote.
No, you implied that he had no integrity.
>> >I think the ceremonies were what we in the West would today call 'blood
>> brother' ceremonies.
>>
>> Which are performed where and by whom? The only context that comes to my
>> mind is in cowboy-and-Indian play by small children.
Guess you can't refute that, eh?
>> >I don't think, btw, that I have seen where it has been shown that
>> >these ceremonies were used as a vehicle for homosexual couples
>> >to gain church acceptance.
>>
>> They weren't. The couples were already accepted. The ceremonies were
>> performed within the context of Christianity.
>
>You might be interested in this quote from Paul Halsall:
I'm not.
>> There's a nice quote in there, also,
>> about people who spend their time thinking a lot about sin being sinners.
>
>I usually like Joseph Campbell, but I don't like this reference being used
>to shut people up from speaking out against sin.
Oh, then try these, again, from a famous Catholic theologian:
"The devil makes many disciples by preaching against sin."
祈r. Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, p. 92
It sometimes happens that men who preach most vehemently about evil and
the punishment of evil, so that they seem to have practically nothing else
on their minds except sin, are really unconscious haters of other men.
They think that the world does not appreciate them, and this is their way
of getting even.
貴erton, New Seeds of Contemplation, p. 93
>You seem to be saying that if we speak against sin we are sinners so we
should just let it be.
You miss the meaning of it entirely--but that does not surprise me.
Re-read what Campbell has to say about Scriptures as *metaphor.* At best
one can find it prescriptions for direct experience of God; at worst it is
considered a rulebook. I know this is really hard for the literal-minded
to understand, but God/dess is not about rule; She is about love.
>Real cute way of shutting people up so sin can
>be accepted as normal. This is why the silent majority is so silent,
>they don't want to be accused of anything and just left alone....and they
>wonder why the society is do depraved.
I think the depravity has to do with the externalization of God/dess, with
materialism, the rape of our environment, with violence, the abuse of
other people and animals, not with people having sex without love or from
the "people" loving and making love. Like all Christian fundamentalists,
you have created a God in your own image: mean, petty, and stupid.
Fenris
deer...@cs.comickyspam (Deerboy67) wrote:
>>Bill Nelson
>
>>I usually like Joseph Campbell, but I don't like this reference being used
>>to shut people up from speaking out against sin.
>
>Agreed. I prefer Jesus's quote on the same subject.
: )
>Paul has some good things
>to say on this subject as well (I rarely concede that Paul had anything useful
>to say). Perhaps you're familar with both.
There is scholarly opinion that poor Paul did not write everything that
has been attributed to him in Scriptures and that he was not as we have
led to believe. See Freke & Gandy, "The Jesus Mysteries."
And thank you very much for your patience and effort if defending Boswell.
Deerboy67
>There is scholarly opinion that poor Paul did not write everything that
>has been attributed to him in Scriptures and that he was not as we have
>led to believe. See Freke & Gandy, "The Jesus Mysteries."
Yes, and probably the same goes for Jesus. I've read the Jesus Mysteries. A
great book that solidified a lot of my own thoughts. The authors have a new
one out that I need to get. Talk about controversal though. These authors
make Boswell look like the establishment.
>And thank you very much for your patience and effort if defending Boswell.
No problem. I use to post here quite often. Took a break for about a year,
and I haven't decided yet if I'm back for good.
--
