Re: Basil's Armenian ancestry
WJho...@aol.com
accident. I had no idea that Basil is stated to have undergone the ritual of
Adelphopoiesis, but Finlay states it in his footnote here
http://books.google.com/books?id=TVnOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA230
A History of Greece: The Byzantine empire, pt. 1, A.D. 716-1057
By George Finlay
WJho...@aol.com
pizza boxes and old clothes, so I'll try to update my page on Basil with some
specific citations.
mike
for those who havnt got access to this, who did he
adelphopoesy with? michael the drunk?
thanks
mike
WJho...@aol.com
When Basil first arrived in Constantinople "barefoot and penniless" with
his knapsack and was sleeping on the streets, a man attached to the church of
St Diomede (almost certainly not a monk) named Nicholas took him in, bathed
and clothed him, and "made him his brother" (adelphiopioinois) and then kept
him as his "housemate and companion... and they rejoiced in each other"
He attracted the attention of another man Theophilus who had a great
interest in men who were "well born, good looking, masculine and strong". Basil
was "loved by him more and more with each passing day." They went to Greece,
where he attracted the attention of a rich widow who showered him with
gifts and the only thing she required was that he "be made brother" to her son
John.
The biography which I cited in this thread, is over a hundred pages long in
Greek side-by-side the Latin, so I don't think I'm going to be transcribing
the Latin, even though it doesn't appear to have been published in a free
version anywhere that I can see online. Perhaps if I have a chance I can
parse through it and merely transcribe the section discussing this, if any.
The above does not come from this source specifically, but rather from
Boswell, "Same-sex unions in per-modern Europe" which quotes from a variety of
sources on Basil.
W
mike
i thought that adelphopoesy was a sort of spiritual adoption
between adult men, like a godparent, but instead made 2 people
brothers. what you quote here suggests that in 9th century
constantinople, it might cover for a quite different relationship.
if you or anyone else can read the original source
i wonder if they support boswells interpretation.
mike
WJho...@aol.com
dmik...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
> i thought that adelphopoesy was a sort of spiritual adoption
> between adult men, like a godparent, but instead made 2 people
> brothers. what you quote here suggests that in 9th century
> constantinople, it might cover for a quite different relationship. >>
>
He addresses this possibility. He asks why are monks forbidden to be so
joined? Because they were, it was a ritual for the laity.
If it was a spiritual brotherhood, you would think that monks would be
specifically called to it, not forbidden from it.
If it were only a godparent ritual, then why was it particularly passed
over for translation, and why was it, or is it now suppressed?
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.5.129615045...@rootsweb.com...
Monks were also forbidden to become godparents, or to act as groomsmen at
weddings - prohibitions that clearly had nothing to do with sexuality, but
rather with avoiding personal bonds that might distract them from monastic
duty.
The story told of Basil (with variants) is that he arrived penniless in
Constantinople; he was clothed and fed by a man named Nikolaos, the steward
of a church, who adopted him as a brother (the word "adelphopoiesis" was
used in this context by Leo Grammaticus) following a tip from his patron
saint that Basil was bound for glory; an actual brother of Nikolaos was
physician to Theophilos, a relative of Emperor Michael III, and recommended
Basil as a stablehand; before long he was made head groom and taken on a
trip to Patras, where he fell ill and was left behind; a very rich widow
named Danelis heard of a premonition that Basil would become emperor, so she
offered him a fortune in return for his remembering her later and on
condition that he took her son Ioannes as his spiritual brother; he said he
was unworthy but she insisted and he agreed; he bought estates in Macedonia
on the proceeds, and afterwards Michael III placed him in the imperial
household.
Obviously adelphopoesis was not equated with a monogamous union, or the
relationship with Nikolas would have precluded another with Ioannes. The
attempt to rewite this as evidence of same-sex marriage is absurd.
Peter Stewart
Wjhonson
This meaning "spiritual brother" is one possible interpretation.
We don't know, as far as I'm aware, that Nicolaus was yet living, when Basil joined in his same-sex union with John.
But otherwise, we don't know actually that this was supposed to be monogamous anyway.
Just that the parallels between it, and the blessing for other-sex marriage were close.
There is also the issue, one of many, that the ritual was suppressed.
There would be no reason, of which I can think, why "spiritual brotherhood" among the laity, would be suppressed.
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.5.129615045...@rootsweb.com...
> dmik...@yahoo.co.uk writes:
>
>
>>
>
>
duty.
household.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message
Peter Stewart
"Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.18.12961680...@rootsweb.com...
> This meaning "spiritual brother" is one possible interpretation.
> We don't know, as far as I'm aware, that Nicolaus was yet living,
> when Basil joined in his same-sex union with John.
The point is that no-one telling the story felt it necessary to report that
Nikolaos was dead - ergo they didn't think it mattered. The point I was
making in any case was rather that both instances in Basil's life were
related as coming about through supernaturally enlightened self-interest,
without any implication of an exclusive or erotic relationship, and
homosexuality has been read into this only recently by someone with an
obsessive agenda.
> But otherwise, we don't know actually that this was supposed
> to be monogamous anyway. Just that the parallels between it, and
> the blessing for other-sex marriage were close.
How so? The supposed aspect of bodily commitment to another person has not
been established. If closely "parallel" are you suggesting that the Eastern
Church was willing to bless adultery in "other-sex" marriage?
> There is also the issue, one of many, that the ritual was suppressed.
> There would be no reason, of which I can think, why "spiritual
> brotherhood" among the laity, would be suppressed.
Have you never heard of vendetta? Do you imagine that in the medieval world
a man boasting of his sworn spiritual brother/s could have no anti-social
consequence that might disturb the Church?
Peter Stewart
Wjhonson
IIRC, there was a source claiming that Nicolaus "befriended" Basil because of a vision, but another source not mentioning it at all.
I think Boswell cites four primary sources for the event, although two of them are different copies of the same source, but not in agreement. Other sources, then must derive from one of these four.
You could just as well say that the other-sex marriage rituals did not imply any erotic component.
I don't find the idea that a commitment ritual *could* disturb the church very persuasive. You could as easily state that marriage itself could disturb the church. Or being a godparent. Yet those were not suppressed.
Peter Stewart
> IIRC, there was a source claiming that Nicolaus "befriended"
> Basil because of a vision, but another source not mentioning it
> at all.
As I said, the story is told with variations by several chroniclers. The
fullest account says that Nikolaos went out to look for Basil - at the
bidding of St Diomedes in a dream - believing that the vagabond would become
emperor.
> I think Boswell cites four primary sources for the event, although
> two of them are different copies of the same source, but not in
> agreement. Other sources, then must derive from one of these four.
The sources for this story are Leo Grammaticus, the continuator of Georgius
Monachus, Pseudo-Symeon and the annals of Zonaras. None of them suggests a
sexual angle to it.
> You could just as well say that the other-sex marriage rituals
> did not imply any erotic component.
Why? It's not me making out a "close parallel" between adelphopoiesis and
marriage - in my view these were quite different in origin and in personal
or social significance, so that one doesn't imply anything about the other.
> I don't find the idea that a commitment ritual *could* disturb the
> church very persuasive.
That's not what I said - explicitly I wrote about _consequence_ of it, not
the rite itself. It was patently capable of being twisted into Church
sanction of adoptive brotherhood as the nucleus of a wider sodality, not
altogether different from being ritually initiated into a fraternal
association today, such as a masonic lodge or bikie gang, but with the
blessing of a priest to sanctify it. Potentially rather dangerous and
unholy.
> You could as easily state that marriage itself could disturb the
> church. Or being a godparent. Yet those were not suppressed.
Marriage and baptism are sacraments, not dispensible. And in any case a wife
or new-born child are not very likely to infest the streets in league with a
husband or godfather in the way that sworn adoptive brothers might do
together.
Peter Stewart
Wjhonson
Marriage and baptism are sacraments today. Part of his entire argument, is that that was a more recent invention.
They were not "sacraments" in the 10th century. The church, he says, wasn't that interested in what the laity were doing along those lines. These "blessing" ceremonies only arose because people wanted various things blessed, like a field, or a house. Marriage and baptism gradually came to be seen as "important" in a unique way, to the church, versus the other blessings. But that was not the case in this time period.
I don't disagree with you claim that the "fullest" version has the brother-making ceremony as a result of a vision that Basil would one day become Emperor, but I can't agree that all the sources state this, in quite this way.
As far as an erotic component, the source that claims that his next "employer" was always on the lookout for "well-built masculine and strong fellows" to be quite direct.
When you state that the ritual ceremonies are not related, have you actually read the ceremonies?
Which by the way, do not connote, any of them, other or same that there would be an erotic component.
So we could just as easily say that other-sex marriage has no erotic component.
It's not untypical to describe a marriage without specifying that they were grinding.
We today, assume they were, if there were children produced.
I think you're trying to be humourous with your idea of "infesting" the streets in a "league", as if two brothers could threaten a city.
When you join the Masons, or a biker gang, you are not joining as a twosome, you are joining as a club, many people together. Not two.
There is no ceremony to join three or four or twenty.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <pss...@bigpond.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: Basil's Armenian ancestry
news:mailman.19.12961777...@rootsweb.com...
> at all.
emperor.
sexual angle to it.
> church very persuasive.
unholy.
together.
Peter Stewart
-------------------------------
Peter Stewart
> Marriage and baptism are sacraments today. Part of his
> entire argument, is that that was a more recent invention.
> They were not "sacraments" in the 10th century. The
> church, he says, wasn't that interested in what the laity
> were doing along those lines.
> These "blessing" ceremonies only arose because people
> wanted various things blessed, like a field, or a house.
> Marriage and baptism gradually came to be seen as "important"
> in a unique way, to the church, versus the other blessings.
> But that was not the case in this time period.
Then his argment is pure, unadulderated and uninformed rubbish. Baptism has
been a sacrament ever since Jesus was baptised by John, and marriage ever
since her attended the wedding feast at Cana. Attempting to rewrite the
history of Christianity in order to push a barrow for same-sex marriage is
misdirected zealotry: if it is right in principle, what can it matter
whether or not this was recognised or sanctioned in the distant past? And
how can a partisan interpretation help to convince anyone who clings to the
distant past as an authority for religious beliefs?
> I don't disagree with you claim that the "fullest" version has
> the brother-making ceremony as a result of a vision that Basil
> would one day become Emperor, but I can't agree that all the
> sources state this, in quite this way.
There is no question of "agreeing" on this since I never said it. I repeat,
the story is told WITH VARIATIONS by several sources.
> As far as an erotic component, the source that claims that his
> next "employer" was always on the lookout for "well-built
> masculine and strong fellows" to be quite direct.
So what? Is everyone who ever worked for a living supposed to share the
proclivities of their employer?
> When you state that the ritual ceremonies are not related,
> have you actually read the ceremonies? Which by the way,
> do not connote, any of them, other or same that there would
> be an erotic component.
Ther is no order of service available to read from the time of Basil for
either marriage or adelphopoiesis, but in any event I did not say that the
"ritual ceremonies" were not related. You can find relationships between any
two rites involving prayer and blessing. The point you fail to acknowledge
is that no-one has yet established any exclusive personal commitment in
adelphopoiesis that parallels - closely or otherwise - marriage. For all we
know Basil might have gone through this with ten or twenty other men besides
Nikolaos and Ioannes. We do know that going through it with them did not
prevent his marrying a wife, so that whatever else it was it was clearl not
a monogamous union involving sexual congress as part of its purpose. There
is not a skerrick of evidence that the Eastern Orthodox Church ever
sanctioned polgyamy or adultery, so that Basil was plainly not considered
bound to another male totally and exclusively.
> So we could just as easily say that other-sex marriage has no
> erotic component. It's not untypical to describe a marriage without
> specifying that they were grinding. We today, assume they were,
> if there were children produced.
Chastity in marriage has always been an ideal of the Church, but of course
not expected of every couple. However, you keep on with this point as if a
connection had somehow been established between "other-sex" marriage and
adelphopoiesis. It hasn't.
> I think you're trying to be humourous with your idea of "infesting"
> the streets in a "league", as if two brothers could threaten a city.
Again, I didn't say that. It is your idea, so far unevidenced, that
adelphopoiesis was limited to two, i.e with one adoptive partner each. Yet
we are told that Basil went through the ceremony with more than one man. How
do you know that he didn't have a dozen more "brothers"?
> When you join the Masons, or a biker gang, you are not joining as
> a twosome, you are joining as a club, many people together. Not two.
> There is no ceremony to join three or four or twenty.
You are joining a "brotherhood" of sorts. Adelphopoiesis creates a
brotherhood of two AT A TIME - and if each of those two can adopt other
brothers by the same means, it can quickly become an association of many.
You keep assuming, despite the evidence, that it was an exclusive union
rather than just a fraternal bond. Nature doesn't confine brothers to one
each. There is no authority in the Bible to limit it in this way, as there
is with marriage but not with godparenting.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
"Peter Stewart" <pss...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:iht861$3ij$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> The sources for this story are Leo Grammaticus, the continuator of
> Georgius Monachus, Pseudo-Symeon and the annals of Zonaras.
Not the annals but the Epitomae, XVI 6, from page 409 in
http://books.google.com/books?id=jvYUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR1.
Peter Stewart
wjhonson
> "Wjhonson" <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:mailman.21.12961809...@rootsweb.com...
>
> > Marriage and baptism are sacraments today. Part of his
> > entire argument, is that that was a more recent invention.
> > They were not "sacraments" in the 10th century. The
> > church, he says, wasn't that interested in what the laity
> > were doing along those lines.
> > These "blessing" ceremonies only arose because people
> > wanted various things blessed, like a field, or a house.
> > Marriage and baptism gradually came to be seen as "important"
> > in a unique way, to the church, versus the other blessings.
> > But that was not the case in this time period.
>
> Then his argment is pure, unadulderated and uninformed rubbish. Baptism has
> been a sacrament ever since Jesus was baptised by John, and marriage ever
> since her attended the wedding feast at Cana. Attempting to rewrite the
> history of Christianity in order to push a barrow for same-sex marriage is
> misdirected zealotry: if it is right in principle, what can it matter
> whether or not this was recognised or sanctioned in the distant past? And
> how can a partisan interpretation help to convince anyone who clings to the
> distant past as an authority for religious beliefs?
>
I'm not sure how you can even believe this :) Are you actually
stating that a priesthood sprung up, in a sudden manner, at Cana,
which from that point forward, began blessing all
"Christian" (whatever this meant in 30AD) weddings and births?
As for why this is important. Understanding how institutions are
created, dismantled, or recognized at various times is important in a
general sense. It's all part of history. You are misjudging this as
an attempt to rewrite the history of "Christianity", when what it is,
is an attempt to uncover part of the Eastern past, that has been
overlooked. Since all of society was "Christian", I suppose you could
call this a part of that religion, but it, like marriage in general,
was merely the recognition of an institution which *had already
existed* prior to the enthronement of Christianity as the religion de
jure.
> > I don't disagree with you claim that the "fullest" version has
> > the brother-making ceremony as a result of a vision that Basil
> > would one day become Emperor, but I can't agree that all the
> > sources state this, in quite this way.
>
> There is no question of "agreeing" on this since I never said it. I repeat,
> the story is told WITH VARIATIONS by several sources.
>
And one of those variations is that there was no divine vision at all,
and the joining was merely one of mutual worldly interest. I can
support you as the next President, I can even be your chief advisor
without being your "companion and housemate", which to me, if not to
you, sounds like an awfully exclusive arrangement, not one you're
sharing with fifteen other men at the same time.
> > As far as an erotic component, the source that claims that his
> > next "employer" was always on the lookout for "well-built
> > masculine and strong fellows" to be quite direct.
>
> So what? Is everyone who ever worked for a living supposed to share the
> proclivities of their employer?
>
The source states that Basil was chosen, because he fit this
requirement, in the extreme in fact, as it states in a manner.
> > When you state that the ritual ceremonies are not related,
> > have you actually read the ceremonies? Which by the way,
> > do not connote, any of them, other or same that there would
> > be an erotic component.
>
> Ther is no order of service available to read from the time of Basil for
> either marriage or adelphopoiesis,
How do you say this? I don't have the book in front of me at the
moment, but I'm fairly sure he states that there are such rituals
existing from ... perhaps the ninth century? Maybe even the eighth...
I'd have to recheck that.
> but in any event I did not say that the
> "ritual ceremonies" were not related. You can find relationships between any
> two rites involving prayer and blessing.
Perhaps, but not so parallel.
> The point you fail to acknowledge
> is that no-one has yet established any exclusive personal commitment in
> adelphopoiesis that parallels - closely or otherwise - marriage. For all we
> know Basil might have gone through this with ten or twenty other men besides
> Nikolaos and Ioannes.
And any other-sex married partners could have as well, this does not
define exclusivity. Henry 8 had six wives. We happen to know they
weren't simultaneous but in most cases, we only assume things like
that, because we can't fathom bigamy not going reported.
> We do know that going through it with them did not
> prevent his marrying a wife, so that whatever else it was it was clearly not
> a monogamous union involving sexual congress as part of its purpose.
You're merging two things without being clear. That a man may have a
wife, and yet other erotic love interests, was a long-standing Roman
custom (western and eastern both), with examples extending right up to
and through this period. Assuming that a man could have a wife and a
mistress, if not different from assuming he could have a wife and a
man-stress. Were not some mistress' officially recognized? I mean as
mistresses obviously. Did not Michael himself have a male bedmate,
and the point is made I believe, that these were "usually eunuchs" but
we can imagine a raised eyebrow in the case when they weren't.
Marriage to a woman did not even constitute in some cases, the primary
love interest, even after the marriage. Some being merely dynastic
alliances, where the man may not even like the woman and they may live
seperately their entire marriage.
> There
> is not a skerrick of evidence that the Eastern Orthodox Church ever
> sanctioned polgyamy or adultery, so that Basil was plainly not considered
> bound to another male totally and exclusively.
I think we can allow a wife and an exclusive male lover as well. Both
of them monogamous for their purpose you might say. A man may have a
wife, a mistress, a eunuch, a boy-love, and yet visit courtesans as
well :) So they say. I'll have to dig out that quote, I may have
miss... stated it.
>
> > So we could just as easily say that other-sex marriage has no
> > erotic component. It's not untypical to describe a marriage without
> > specifying that they were grinding. We today, assume they were,
> > if there were children produced.
>
> Chastity in marriage has always been an ideal of the Church, but of course
> not expected of every couple. However, you keep on with this point as if a
> connection had somehow been established between "other-sex" marriage and
> adelphopoiesis. It hasn't.
Yes an ideal that dooms the human race to the current generation. I
think, most Christians ignored that little piece of advice. The book,
which you haven't read, goes into quite a bit of detail to make this
very connection. I find it interesting that you're so adamant against
it, when you haven't read it.
>
> > I think you're trying to be humourous with your idea of "infesting"
> > the streets in a "league", as if two brothers could threaten a city.
>
> Again, I didn't say that. It is your idea, so far unevidenced, that
> adelphopoiesis was limited to two, i.e with one adoptive partner each. Yet
> we are told that Basil went through the ceremony with more than one man. How
> do you know that he didn't have a dozen more "brothers"?
>
Although we have a dozen or more examples of this ritual. Sources,
cited in this work. None of them state anything other than two men.
Not three, or four or any other number. How do we know that any
married couple had more than one marriage partner? It's the same
situation, same issue, same result. We assume it. It's a bit slanted
to say, this must be true, because it can't be false, and yet this
must be false because it can't be true. :)
> > When you join the Masons, or a biker gang, you are not joining as
> > a twosome, you are joining as a club, many people together. Not two.
> > There is no ceremony to join three or four or twenty.
>
> You are joining a "brotherhood" of sorts. Adelphopoiesis creates a
> brotherhood of two AT A TIME - and if each of those two can adopt other
> brothers by the same means, it can quickly become an association of many.
> You keep assuming, despite the evidence, that it was an exclusive union
> rather than just a fraternal bond. Nature doesn't confine brothers to one
> each. There is no authority in the Bible to limit it in this way, as there
> is with marriage but not with godparenting.
>
I suppose, but we have no evidence that that occurred. Just as we
have no evidence that it occurred in other-sex marriage. The
narratives of this sort of thing make it clear to me at least, that it
was considered a significant event in the lives of the people
involved. Not just joining some club, but making a person your
companion, not in plural, but singular.
Of course I haven't read the works of those who claim to have other
interpretations, or to dispute what Boswell wrote. But if I made a
person my "housemate and companion", or if a person were the master of
my bedchamber, and so on, I would certainly expect that to be a
singular office.
W
Peter Stewart
in the normal way, without the chore of adding in chevrons to distinguish
who wrote what. Can't you get help to set conventional/compatible defaults
for your emails?
I wrote:
> > Baptism has been a sacrament ever since Jesus was baptised by John,
> > and marriage ever since her attended the wedding feast at Cana.
> > Attempting to rewrite the history of Christianity in order to push a
> > barrow for same-sex marriage is misdirected zealotry: if it is right in
> > principle, what can it matter whether or not this was recognised or
> > sanctioned in the distant past? And how can a partisan
> > interpretation help to convince anyone who clings to the distant
> > past as an authority for religious beliefs?
Will Johnson replied:
> I'm not sure how you can even believe this :) Are you actually
> stating that a priesthood sprung up, in a sudden manner, at Cana,
> which from that point forward, began blessing all "Christian"
> (whatever this meant in 30AD) weddings and births?
What a waste of time to post such tosh. If you don't know the first thing
about Christian orthodoxy, why opine about it in public?
First of all, of course, I was not writing about MY beliefs: the subject is
what the CHURCH believed, permitted and considered to be a sacrament. And of
course the Church believes, now as it did in the medieval era, that the
priesthood was instituted by Christ himself - have you never heard of
Apostolic Succession? The sacraments were endlessly discussed by councils,
and adelphopoiesis was not one of them. Not ever.
Will Johnson again:
> As for why this is important. Understanding how institutions are
> created, dismantled, or recognized at various times is important in a
> general sense. It's all part of history. You are misjudging this as
> an attempt to rewrite the history of "Christianity", when what it is,
> is an attempt to uncover part of the Eastern past, that has been
> overlooked.
It can't be "overlooked" if it was never factual in the first place. You
have not established that the Boswell interpretation is even "closely
parallel" to the facts. And as for being "important", the orthodox view of
sacraments is the nub of the question as to whether or not same-sex marriage
was ever allowed by the Church.
Will Johnson:
> Since all of society was "Christian", I suppose you could
> call this a part of that religion, but it, like marriage in general,
> was merely the recognition of an institution which *had already
> existed* prior to the enthronement of Christianity as the religion de
> jure.
I don't know what this is intended to mean. Obviously no-one supposed that
Christ invented marriage at Cana, he is only supposed to have sanctified an
institution that already existed. How does that go to prove that Basil was
somehow married to another man?
Will Johnson wrote:
> I don't disagree with you claim that the "fullest" version has
> the brother-making ceremony as a result of a vision that Basil
> would one day become Emperor, but I can't agree that all the
> sources state this, in quite this way.
I replied:
> > There is no question of "agreeing" on this since I never said it.
> > I repeat, the story is told WITH VARIATIONS by several sources.
Will Johnson responded:
> And one of those variations is that there was no divine vision at all,
> and the joining was merely one of mutual worldly interest. I can
> support you as the next President, I can even be your chief advisor
> without being your "companion and housemate", which to me, if not
> to you, sounds like an awfully exclusive arrangement, not one you're
> sharing with fifteen other men at the same time.
This is simply untrue - no source states that "there was no divine vision at
all". The four sources are not all independent of each other anyway, some
are just less detailed than Leo Grammaticus about the dream of Nikolaos. I
didn't say that Nikolaos shared his house with 15 other men, and your
constant twisting of other people's posts is very tiresome. I said that
Basil might have gone through adelphopoiesis with any number of men. We know
of two. It was essentially different from marriage in that respect.
Will Johnson:
> As far as an erotic component, the source that claims that his
> next "employer" was always on the lookout for "well-built
> masculine and strong fellows" to be quite direct.
I replied:
> > So what? Is everyone who ever worked for a living supposed to
> > share the proclivities of their employer?
Will Johnson:
> The source states that Basil was chosen, because he fit this
> requirement, in the extreme in fact, as it states in a manner.
Leo Grammaticus wrote that Basil was recommended to Theophilus - who had
complained that he couldn't find suitable grooms - because he was tall and
strong, and he was evidently an expert horseman. The statement that
Theophilus like to dress handsome men in silks, etc, is not applied to
Basil. But anyway the exploitation or harrassment of employees to gratify an
employer's tastes do not reflect on their own sexuality.
Will Johnson:
> When you state that the ritual ceremonies are not related,
> have you actually read the ceremonies? Which by the way,
> do not connote, any of them, other or same that there would
> be an erotic component.
I replied:
> > Ther is no order of service available to read from the time of Basil for
> > either marriage or adelphopoiesis,
Will Johnson:
> How do you say this? I don't have the book in front of me at the
> moment, but I'm fairly sure he states that there are such rituals
> existing from ... perhaps the ninth century? Maybe even the eighth...
> I 'd have to recheck that.
Then recheck it and let us know. I think you will find he claims that
rituals took place, not that these are documented in full.
I continued:
> > but in any event I did not say that the "ritual ceremonies" were
> > not related. You can find relationships between any two rites
> > involving prayer and blessing.
Will Johnson:
> Perhaps, but not so parallel.
Again, you are assuming a "parallel" that you have not proved. A close
parallel to marriage would have to give explicit sanction to a relationship
that IN THE VIEW OF THE CHURCH was: (a) instituted by God, (b) exclusive of
any others, (c) sanctifying sexual congress between the couple, and (d)
indissoluble except by death.
I wrote:
> > The point you fail to acknowledge is that no-one has yet established
> > any exclusive personal commitment in adelphopoiesis that parallels
> > - closely or otherwise - marriage. For all we know Basil might have
> > gone through this with ten or twenty other men besides Nikolaos
> > and Ioannes.
Will Johnson:
> And any other-sex married partners could have as well, this does not
> define exclusivity. Henry 8 had six wives. We happen to know they
> weren't simultaneous but in most cases, we only assume things like
> that, because we can't fathom bigamy not going reported.
Serially exclusive, even for Henry VIII. Whether or not bigamy is reported
is beside the point, since it was explicitly, absolutely prohibited by canon
law.
I wrote:
> > We do know that going through it with them did not
> > prevent his marrying a wife, so that whatever else it was it was
> > clearly not a monogamous union involving sexual congress as
> > part of its purpose.
Will Johnson:
> You're merging two things without being clear. That a man may have
> a wife, and yet other erotic love interests, was a long-standing Roman
> custom (western and eastern both), with examples extending right up
> to and through this period. Assuming that a man could have a wife
> and a mistress, if not different from assuming he could have a wife
> and a man-stress. Were not some mistress' officially recognized?
> I mean as mistresses obviously. Did not Michael himself have a male
> bedmate, and the point is made I believe, that these were "usually
> eunuchs" but we can imagine a raised eyebrow in the case when
> they weren't. Marriage to a woman did not even constitute in some
> cases, the primary love interest, even after the marriage. Some being
> merely dynastic alliances, where the man may not even like the
> woman and they may live seperately their entire marriage.
This is completely irrelevant - no-one has suggested that every married man
will be perfectly faithful to his wife, any more than that the Church would
bless adultery with either a male or a female.
It's too tedious to go on separating one post from another. The gist of Will
Johnson's further remarks appears to be that the Church might well sanction
a bit on the side for any married person. It didn't. This is not a matter of
opinion. He further assumes that I must first read a book peddling a view he
approves before I can be adamant that this is tripe. It may be news to him,
but Boswell's unscholarly work has been discredited by far greater experts
than him or me. Try this:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-kennedy1.html
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> Try this:
> http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/bosrev-kennedy1.html
>
So your source to dispute his careful citations is one that makes wild
statements claiming they are based on some source but then utterly fails to cite
any source for anything they claim. So a person cannot actually refer to
the sources they name, in any useful way. Two Catholic theologians. No they
don't have a horse in this race.
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.29.12962007...@rootsweb.com...
Um, no. Just because I post a link to something that happens to be available
online does not make it my only "source". Googling is not my main activity
in life, and your ungainly leaping to conclusions is as tiresome as your
crazy assumptions. Reviews are never likely to cite many sources compared to
the book under scrutiny, but in this one they make a straightforward case
about Boswell's misuse and mistranslation of sources. The only riposte to
this (on the website to which I provided a link) was from someone whose best
effort was to misrepresent that each of the points at issue was somehow
inessential to the case - and then showed his bias by stating that his life
had been saved by Boswell.
However, my principal source on this particular subject is Claudia Rapp's
excellent paper 'Ritual Brotherhood in Byzantium' from the symposium Ritual
Brotherhood in Ancient and Medieval Europe, edited by Elizabeth Brown &
others, published in *Traditio* 52 (1997) 285-362.
Rapp concluded that Basil had entered ritual brotherhood with four men apart
from Nikolaos and Ioannes. She traced the history of adelphopoiesis and
concluded that it was more closely "parallel" to godparenthood than to
marriage. In earlier centuries the only instances we know of involved
churchmen and saints, in Basil's time they more often involved emperors and
courtiers. In his case they were all contracted for advancement or political
motives.
Peter Stewart
mike
> <WJhon...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:mailman.5.129615045...@rootsweb.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In a message dated 1/27/2011 8:32:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
>
> - Show quoted text -
my suspicion also. i've not read either boswell or the original
accounts
but it seems from what you describe that it seems as if the sources
tell this story to emphasise the supernatural element of fate or god
given fortune (or sheer cunning and guile) that led a peniless
vagabond to becoming emperor.
do these accounts actually have lurid emphasis that Boswell
seems to imply? becos he seems to have his own agenda
in arguing that these accounts support a theory about
same sex marriage. Is there any evidence that medieval
people saw them in this way, or that they were used
in this way?
mike
Kevin Bradford
> From: dmik...@yahoo.co.uk
> Subject: Re: Basil's Armenian ancestry
> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:59:26 -0800
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
We're not likely to get anything more than an unbiased opinion and cursory treatment of this topic, since of course the only persons who brandished pens in those days were the clerics.
One need only look to the example of Edward II or, earlier, Richard I, to get a flavor for the possibilities here--particularly in the first case re: "brotherhood" and all that it might have implied.
Kevin Bradford
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
This is simply untrue :)
We have extant laws about brotherhood which mentions wives and children, so
those aren't saints or monks. Unless by "churchmen" you mean just
something like a caretaker who isn't in holy orders precluding these sorts of unions
entirely.
There's no indication that any of these laws were written based on
advancement or political motives, in fact I don't know what you could possibly be
alluding to here.
There was already well-established custom of "adopting sons", such as the
Emperors of rome did, but others as well. I don't trust the idea that we can
assume these were all for political advancement.
So what would be the point of adopting a "brother" when you could merely
adopt the same person as your "son" then ?
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> In earlier centuries the only instances we know of involved
> churchmen and saints, in Basil's time they more often involved emperors
> and
> courtiers. In his case they were all contracted for advancement or
> political
> motives.
>
The other argument against this position is the sheer number of such
sources we have, and the number of laws that seem to speak about it. IF such a
thing only involved emperors and courtiers, I don't think we'd see such a
widespread extent of sources.
Peter Stewart
automatically. Keep trying this way. Other people who post through AOL don't
have the same problem that I pointed out before.
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.5.129624107...@rootsweb.com...
> In a message dated 1/28/2011 1:18:04 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> pss...@bigpond.com writes:
>
>
>> In earlier centuries the only instances we know of involved
>> churchmen and saints, in Basil's time they more often involved emperors
>> and
>> courtiers. In his case they were all contracted for advancement or
>> political
>> motives. >>
>>
>
> This is simply untrue :)
> We have extant laws about brotherhood which mentions wives and children,
> so
> those aren't saints or monks. Unless by "churchmen" you mean just
> something like a caretaker who isn't in holy orders precluding these sorts
> of unions
> entirely.
Rubbish - you are relying entirely on the specious work of Boswell. I said
"In earlier centuries", meaning before Basil's time. Read Claudia Rapp,
cited yesterday. The first phase of ritual brotherhood that she found was in
hagiography, and the specific first case involved St Theodoros of Sykeon who
"entered into a brotherhood relationship with Thomas, who was patriarch of
Constantinople from 607 to 610". The laws y refer to came much later, when
adelphopoiesis was practiced also in other-sex relationships.
> There's no indication that any of these laws were written based on
> advancement or political motives, in fact I don't know what you could
> possibly be
> alluding to here.
>
> There was already well-established custom of "adopting sons", such as the
> Emperors of rome did, but others as well. I don't trust the idea that we
> can
> assume these were all for political advancement.
I said IN BASIL'S CASE they were all contracted for political advancement.
You don't have to assume this, it is set out in the sources.
> So what would be the point of adopting a "brother" when you could merely
> adopt the same person as your "son" then ?
Because the personal and social obligations of a brother were different from
those of a son, and becuase the adelphopoiesis relationship WAS NOT
EXCLUSIVE. A man could be made brother to any number of others, with no
inheritance at issue, while he could only be adopted as a son once. In this
sense (NB IN THIS SENSE) adoption is more "closely parallel" to marriage.
Try not twisting other people's words to suit your case - I write what I
mean, not what wish to score misconceived points off.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.6.129624137...@rootsweb.com...
Once again, I didn't say that adelphopoiesis "only involved emperors and
courtiers", I plainly said "in Basil's time they more often involved
emperors and courtiers". If you consider that "more often" and "only" are
the same, there is no basis for conducting useful discussion with others.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>
> "Wjhonson" <wjho...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.18.12961680...@rootsweb.com...
>
>> This meaning "spiritual brother" is one possible interpretation.
>> We don't know, as far as I'm aware, that Nicolaus was yet living,
>> when Basil joined in his same-sex union with John.
>
> The point is that no-one telling the story felt it necessary to report
> that Nikolaos was dead - ergo they didn't think it mattered.
This was inattentive of me - the subsequent narrative makes clear that
Nikolaos was living after Basil's next adelphopoiesis with Ioannes the son
of Danelis in the Peloponnese: Nikolaos was made treasurer to the
patriarchate and synkellos (a high ecclesiastical office) after Basil became
emperor, while Ioannes was called to Constantinople and made protospatharios
(senior sword-bearer) and given privileges at court "because of the
communion of brotherhood that had already been established".
Note the pattern - there was no intention of Basil cohabiting with these men
for life. They became brothers and went their separate ways until the
obligation incurred by adelphopoiesis could be performed.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> > This is simply untrue :)
> > We have extant laws about brotherhood which mentions wives and children,
>
> > so
> > those aren't saints or monks. Unless by "churchmen" you mean just
> > something like a caretaker who isn't in holy orders precluding these
> sorts
> > of unions
> > entirely.
>
> Rubbish - you are relying entirely on the specious work of Boswell. I said
>
> "In earlier centuries", meaning before Basil's time. Read Claudia Rapp,
> cited yesterday. The first phase of ritual brotherhood that she found was
> in
> hagiography, and the specific first case involved St Theodoros of Sykeon
> who
> "entered into a brotherhood relationship with Thomas, who was patriarch of
>
> Constantinople from 607 to 610". The laws y refer to came much later, when
>
> adelphopoiesis was practiced also in other-sex relationships. >>
She is discussing specific instances of named relationships. My post above
mentions *laws* discussing this form of brotherhood. It does not name
specific persons, since the law was to be applied generally. Whether or not she
found specific cases in hagiography, does not discount, that there was a
law, in this same time period. Sixth or seventh century. That mentions this
type of brotherhood with how it may affect "wives and children" specified in
the law. This is evidence that such an institution existed at this time,
and that it was not confined to saints. The law did not come much later, and
the dating of the law was *not* done by Boswell, he merely cites it, from
the work of another.
>
> > There's no indication that any of these laws were written based on
> > advancement or political motives, in fact I don't know what you could
> > possibly be
> > alluding to here.
> >
> > There was already well-established custom of "adopting sons", such as
> the
> > Emperors of rome did, but others as well. I don't trust the idea that
> we
> > can
> > assume these were all for political advancement.
>
> I said IN BASIL'S CASE they were all contracted for political advancement.
>
> You don't have to assume this, it is set out in the sources. >>
In some of the sources, they allude to this, without specifying stating it.
In some of them they do not. IN basil's case.
>
> > So what would be the point of adopting a "brother" when you could merely
> > adopt the same person as your "son" then ?
>
> Because the personal and social obligations of a brother were different
> from
> those of a son, and becuase the adelphopoiesis relationship WAS NOT
> EXCLUSIVE. A man could be made brother to any number of others, with no
> inheritance at issue, while he could only be adopted as a son once. In
> this
> sense (NB IN THIS SENSE) adoption is more "closely parallel" to marriage.
>
> Try not twisting other people's words to suit your case - I write what I
> mean, not what wish to score misconceived points off.
>
> Peter Stewart >>
You assume the adelphopiesis was not exclusive. You assume a man "could be
made brother to any number of others"
You assume there was "no inheritance at issue", in fact the laws
specifically address inheritence as an issue, contradicting what you're assuming.
W
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> Once again, I didn't say that adelphopoiesis "only involved emperors and
> courtiers", I plainly said "in Basil's time they more often involved
> emperors and courtiers". If you consider that "more often" and "only" are
> the same, there is no basis for conducting useful discussion with others.>>
>
>
I dispute that we know any such thing. Whether "only" or "more often".
I submit that in fact the vast majority of such cases involved the common
people.
See I can proclaim unsubstantiated claims as easily as the next.
If, as you claim, "more often" then why would we have so many cases, and
why would it not be seen as an unusual situation. Instead it appears to be
treated as a commonplace arrangement.
Peter Stewart
"mike" <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4e71b49b-950f-46e9...@k17g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> do these accounts actually have lurid emphasis that Boswell
> seems to imply? becos he seems to have his own agenda
> in arguing that these accounts support a theory about
> same sex marriage. Is there any evidence that medieval
> people saw them in this way, or that they were used
> in this way?
There is no such evidence - on the contrary, Rapp noted that "Emperor
Justinian, who was notorious for his persecution of sodomites, had entered
into a formal relation of brotherhood with Strategios, who was his minister
of finance ... On one occasion, Strategios is called the emperor's
adelphopeitos". Homosexuality had nothing to do with it. The terminology
ought to be a fair clue to this: gay brothers don't normally have sex
together, and no source ever called an adelphopeitos a "spouse".
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.7.129624610...@rootsweb.com...
Who said anything about "confined to saints"? If you can't understand plain
English we can't have a useful discussion. As for these supposed laws in the
"sixth or seventh century" restricting adelphopoiesis to laymen, prove it.
<snip>
> You assume the adelphopiesis was not exclusive. You assume a man "could
> be
> made brother to any number of others"
No I don't assume it - this is documented. You are misled by Boswell. I
pointed out before, Rapp gives sources for other "brothers" made by Basil
simultaneously with Nikolaos and Ioannes.
> You assume there was "no inheritance at issue", in fact the laws
> specifically address inheritence as an issue, contradicting what you're
> assuming.
What laws? If these are specific "in fact", then specify them.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.8.129624624...@rootsweb.com...
I don't follow this gabble.
We can only know of the cases that are documented, and around Basil's time
these mostly involved emperors. This is not "unsubstantiated", whereas of
course making any claim about an imaginary "vast majority" of cases is
absurd.
We don't actually have "so many cases" from Basil's time anyway. If Boswell
pretends that (and I doubt it) then he was dishonest as well as deluded.
Peter Stewart
David Teague
Inquiring minds want to know:
How do we know that these ceremonies were actually supressed -- rather than simply falling out of fashion over time?
Or, even if they were actively supressed, what's the evidence that the supression didn't come about precisely because some nervous clerics suspected that they could provide cover for an otherwise illicit same-sex union? [N.B.: This wouldn't even begin to prove that any sort of undercover "gay marriage" actually was going on, merely that the medieval Constantinopolitan morality police claimed to fear the possibility.]
Sources, anyone?
David Teague
Peter Stewart
"David Teague" <davt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.10.129625254...@rootsweb.com...
They were not suppressed, just forbidden (along with godparenthood) in
monastic rules and unrecognised by the law for others - examples are
documented of emperors engaging in adelphopoeisis down to to mid-14th
century, and former subjects after the fall of the empire. A legal manual
written in 1335 stated that adelphopoiesis was "not legal", but there is no
evidence that this was a general view or enforced.
Peter Stewart
Wjhonson
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Stewart <pss...@bigpond.com>
To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
Sent: Fri, Jan 28, 2011 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: Basil's Armenian ancestry
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.8.129624624...@rootsweb.com...
> pss...@bigpond.com writes:
>
>
>> others.>>
>>
>>
>
> people.
>
>
> be
absurd.
Peter Stewart
-------------------
Address directly the point of why a law would exist if there were no cases. Or if the only cases were a few.
What's the point of having a law for one case which hasn't even yet occurred ?
It's pretty tedious to go through this book each time you raise a point, not having read it yourself, and try to find his citations, which are not indexed
by your quarrilous points, but which I have to re-find again.
He cites directly a law which existed prior to Basil, which directly address adoptive brotherhood, wives and children, and how they might be affected
by this institution. IF you want all these citations, go read the book.
There are hundreds of footnotes. Hundreds. I don't feel like re arguing ad infinitium each and every footnote with a person who
can't even be called upon to reference the very book with which they vehemently dispute every footnote.
So let that be the end of it.
This is distracting me from more productive work. You will never be convinced at any rate, so it's hardly worth the time to try to convince
all the readers here. They can get the book, which I'm sure sold several thousand copies, for themselves, if they are so inclined to
ferret out all the citations and try to learn Greek and Latin as well.
Peter Stewart
> Address directly the point of why a law would exist if there
> were no cases. Or if the only cases were a few. What's the
> point of having a law for one case which hasn't even yet occurred ?
You haven't established that there was such a law. You keep asserting this
as "fact", but when asked to provide specific detail you just repeat the
assertion.
> It's pretty tedious to go through this book each time you raise
> a point, not having read it yourself, and try to find his citations,
> which are not indexed by your quarrilous points, but which I
> have to re-find again.
Boo hoo. I'm nterested in the subject of medieval relationships, biological
and otherwise, not in Boswell's book for its own sake. It's you who choose
to treat it as authoritative.
> He cites directly a law which existed prior to Basil, which
> directly address adoptive brotherhood, wives and children, and
> how they might be affected by this institution. IF you want all
> these citations, go read the book.
Ah, I see - Boswell supports your point with a direct citation, but you
intend to keep this a secret.
> There are hundreds of footnotes. Hundreds. I don't feel like
>re arguing ad infinitium each and every footnote with a person
>who can't even be called upon to reference the very book with
> which they vehemently dispute every footnote.
Boswell doesn't own this subject. You evidently won't bother to pursue
Claudia Rapp's paper or any other correective to your deeply flawed
authority. And you announced the "fact" that now you clearly can't find in
these "hundreds" of footnotes. Surely you learned this "fact" from one of
these, so why not quote it and stop the evasion?
> So let that be the end of it.
> This is distracting me from more productive work. You will
> never be convinced at any rate, so it's hardly worth the time to
> try to convince all the readers here. They can get the book,
> which I'm sure sold several thousand copies, for themselves, if
> they are so inclined to ferret out all the citations and try to
> learn Greek and Latin as well.
Yes, it's all to hard for Wee Willie. But yet he can't shut up...
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> It's extremely inconvenient for others that your posts can't be replied
> to
> in the normal way, without the chore of adding in chevrons to distinguish
> who wrote what. Can't you get help to set conventional/compatible defaults
>
> for your emails? >>
I have no control over any of that.
That's not to what we were referring however. *You* stated that marriage
and baptism were sacraments from the time of the marriage of Cana forward.
However they weren't. Before the year 1000 (he cites his source) the
blessing on marriage unions was "considered a favor". The church saw no reason to
interfere, he goes on, as late as the twelth century the church saw the
church wedding as no more than a corollary to the public wedding... etc etc etc.
>
> Will Johnson again:
> > As for why this is important. Understanding how institutions are
> > created, dismantled, or recognized at various times is important in a
> > general sense. It's all part of history. You are misjudging this as
> > an attempt to rewrite the history of "Christianity", when what it is,
> > is an attempt to uncover part of the Eastern past, that has been
> > overlooked.
>
> It can't be "overlooked" if it was never factual in the first place. You
> have not established that the Boswell interpretation is even "closely
> parallel" to the facts. And as for being "important", the orthodox view of
>
> sacraments is the nub of the question as to whether or not same-sex
> marriage
> was ever allowed by the Church.>
Yes even things that aren't "factual" as you say can be overlooked. We
could have a book, in Greek, which is translated into English, except Chapter 8
which discusses ways to raise Satan... Happens all the time. It's not up
to me to establish what Boswell wrote, he did that himself. The orthodox
view is not what's important here, at least not that view today. That's the
entire basis of the work. That the view changed from then to now. And that
at any rate, no marriages were "sacraments" anyway.
>
> Will Johnson:
> > Since all of society was "Christian", I suppose you could
> > call this a part of that religion, but it, like marriage in general,
> > was merely the recognition of an institution which *had already
> > existed* prior to the enthronement of Christianity as the religion de
> > jure.
>
> I don't know what this is intended to mean. Obviously no-one supposed that
>
> Christ invented marriage at Cana, he is only supposed to have sanctified
> an
> institution that already existed. How does that go to prove that Basil was
>
> somehow married to another man? >>
Modern-day back-creations don't really work for me. Christ said nothing of
the sort, he didn't even *preside* in that way at the wedding, and in fact
we don't know that anyone did. A sacrament without an officer to perform
it? In fact marriages were typically conducted as "I marry you, you marry me"
the parties decided it, and their friends recognized it, there was no
officer to join them at all. The same way divorces were "I divorce you, I
divorce you, I divorce you" with witnesses.
>
> Will Johnson wrote:
> > I don't disagree with you claim that the "fullest" version has
> > the brother-making ceremony as a result of a vision that Basil
> > would one day become Emperor, but I can't agree that all the
> > sources state this, in quite this way.
>
> I replied:
> > > There is no question of "agreeing" on this since I never said it.
> > > I repeat, the story is told WITH VARIATIONS by several sources.
>
> Will Johnson responded:
> > And one of those variations is that there was no divine vision at all,
> > and the joining was merely one of mutual worldly interest. I can
> > support you as the next President, I can even be your chief advisor
> > without being your "companion and housemate", which to me, if not
> > to you, sounds like an awfully exclusive arrangement, not one you're
> > sharing with fifteen other men at the same time.
>
> This is simply untrue - no source states that "there was no divine vision
> at
> all". The four sources are not all independent of each other anyway, some
> are just less detailed than Leo Grammaticus about the dream of Nikolaos. I
>
> didn't say that Nikolaos shared his house with 15 other men, and your
> constant twisting of other people's posts is very tiresome. I said that
> Basil might have gone through adelphopoiesis with any number of men. We
> know
> of two. It was essentially different from marriage in that respect. >>
I did not say that a source *states* that "there was no divine vision at
all". What I stated was that "not all sources state this", quite a different
thing entirely.
It was not different from marriage in going through it with two men, many
men have gone through marriage with two women., and more. Not
simultaneously, or even, as far as we know that close in time, and we don't know that
Basil did either. He obviously lived with one man for a time, then went into
the employ of another, after which date, he then joined with John. For all we
know his first husband had died years before.
>
> Will Johnson:
> > As far as an erotic component, the source that claims that his
> > next "employer" was always on the lookout for "well-built
> > masculine and strong fellows" to be quite direct.
>
> I replied:
> > > So what? Is everyone who ever worked for a living supposed to
> > > share the proclivities of their employer?
>
> Will Johnson:
> > The source states that Basil was chosen, because he fit this
> > requirement, in the extreme in fact, as it states in a manner.
>
> Leo Grammaticus wrote that Basil was recommended to Theophilus - who had
> complained that he couldn't find suitable grooms - because he was tall and
>
> strong, and he was evidently an expert horseman. The statement that
> Theophilus like to dress handsome men in silks, etc, is not applied to
> Basil. But anyway the exploitation or harrassment of employees to gratify
> an
> employer's tastes do not reflect on their own sexuality. >>
Yes and no. Basil's expertise with horses (or rather A horse) was not
necessarily known at the time he supposedly demonstarted his ability to charm
this one horse. Because he did, he was then appointed to be master of the
stables, but we don't know that anyone knew it before hand.
The continuator does not only say "tall and strong" but rather that
Theophilus "had a great interest in well-born, good-looking, well-built men, who
were very masculine and strong." and when he saw how expectional Basil was in
those respects he apopinted him his protostratorius (chief equerry). And
then goes on to say that Basil "was loved by him more and more with each
passing day."
Yes I agree its possible that Theophilus minions weren't into men, but they
were at least willing to be so-used in order to get ahead.
>
> Will Johnson:
> > When you state that the ritual ceremonies are not related,
> > have you actually read the ceremonies? Which by the way,
> > do not connote, any of them, other or same that there would
> > be an erotic component.
>
> I replied:
> > > Ther is no order of service available to read from the time of Basil
> for
> > > either marriage or adelphopoiesis,
>
> Will Johnson:
> > How do you say this? I don't have the book in front of me at the
> > moment, but I'm fairly sure he states that there are such rituals
> > existing from ... perhaps the ninth century? Maybe even the eighth...
> > I 'd have to recheck that.
>
> Then recheck it and let us know. I think you will find he claims that
> rituals took place, not that these are documented in full.
I don't know what you imply by "documented in full". We were speaking of
how long ago these occurred, you had said "There is no order of service
available to read from the TIME of Basil..." There is a heterosexual nuptial
office, translated in the Appendix dated to the seventh or eighth century. The
next entry in the Appendix is a translation of Same Sex office dated to the
tenth century. But he states that something he calls Barberini 336 includes
both other-sex and same-sex joining rituals and was "probably written in
the eighth century..."
Ah here's the answer to an earlier point, he states that marriage was not
"declared a sacrament" until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.
>
> I continued:
> > > but in any event I did not say that the "ritual ceremonies" were
> > > not related. You can find relationships between any two rites
> > > involving prayer and blessing.
>
> Will Johnson:
> > Perhaps, but not so parallel.
>
> Again, you are assuming a "parallel" that you have not proved. A close
> parallel to marriage would have to give explicit sanction to a
> relationship
> that IN THE VIEW OF THE CHURCH was: (a) instituted by God, (b) exclusive
> of
> any others, (c) sanctifying sexual congress between the couple, and (d)
> indissoluble except by death. >>
I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm not assuming a parallel either.
There's a middle in there somewhere.
I dispute all four points you make above. They are all predicated on
things which are not on the table.
No marriages of this time were "indissoluble except by death". None of
them. Not one :)
Why so adamant? Are you seriously going to state that there was no such
thing as divorce, when we have countless examples?
Who is talking about "in the view of the church" except you? The priests
were blessing a union which was already de facto, that holds true in same-sex
or other-sex joinings. It's only conservative redactors who are claiming
that the church even cared at this point very much. There is no evidence, in
fact lots against, that the church thought an other-sex marriage was
"exclusive" and even if they had so what? Married men had lovers all the time,
even Michael and Basil each did, when married. So where does this exclusive
part come from anyway? The marriage rituals do not mention sex at all. None
of them. So how do we know what the church did or didn't think at this
time? We don't. And it doesn't matter. The laity were not subordinated to the
church in all things.
>
> I wrote:
> > > The point you fail to acknowledge is that no-one has yet established
> > > any exclusive personal commitment in adelphopoiesis that parallels
> > > - closely or otherwise - marriage. For all we know Basil might have
> > > gone through this with ten or twenty other men besides Nikolaos
> > > and Ioannes.
>
> Will Johnson:
> > And any other-sex married partners could have as well, this does not
> > define exclusivity. Henry 8 had six wives. We happen to know they
> > weren't simultaneous but in most cases, we only assume things like
> > that, because we can't fathom bigamy not going reported.
>
> Serially exclusive, even for Henry VIII. Whether or not bigamy is reported
>
> is beside the point, since it was explicitly, absolutely prohibited by
> canon
> law. >>
Canon law does not determine what people actually do. Henry 8 had
mistresses while married. I guess the church excommunicated him then? No actually
it didn't. At least not for that.
I didn't say the church "sanctioned" anything about adultery, one way or
the other.
The gist of Boswell's argument is that the church, at this time knew that
people were human, and had been doing x and y for many centuries.
They were merely blessing events that were already de jure.
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2.129632385...@rootsweb.com...
> In a message dated 1/27/2011 9:50:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> pss...@bigpond.com writes:
>
>
>> It's extremely inconvenient for others that your posts can't be replied
>> to
>> in the normal way, without the chore of adding in chevrons to distinguish
>> who wrote what. Can't you get help to set conventional/compatible
>> defaults
>>
>> for your emails? >>
>
>
> I have no control over any of that.
And yet with this post and others yesterday the problem has been fixed.
Fancy that.
<snip>
>> First of all, of course, I was not writing about MY beliefs: the subject
>> is
>> what the CHURCH believed, permitted and considered to be a sacrament. And
>> of
>> course the Church believes, now as it did in the medieval era, that the
>> priesthood was instituted by Christ himself - have you never heard of
>> Apostolic Succession? The sacraments were endlessly discussed by
>> councils,
>>
>> and adelphopoiesis was not one of them. Not ever.>>
>
>
> That's not to what we were referring however. *You* stated that marriage
> and baptism were sacraments from the time of the marriage of Cana forward.
> However they weren't. Before the year 1000 (he cites his source) the
> blessing on marriage unions was "considered a favor". The church saw no
> reason to
> interfere, he goes on, as late as the twelth century the church saw the
> church wedding as no more than a corollary to the public wedding... etc
> etc etc.
The Church considered that baptism was a sacrament because Jesus was
baptised, and marriage was a sacrament because he sanctified it at the
wedding feast. Adelphopoiesis was never held to be a sacrament: the joining
in brotherhood was not considered to be an exclusive, indissoluble union of
two people or to carry the Church's sanction for sexual relations between
them.
As for the blessing of marriage, you are confusing this with the sacrament -
the former is just a priestly rite, the latter is supposed to be the
operation of divine grace that can be (but does not have to be) outwardly
shown or administered by the priestly rite. Boswell ought to have understood
this distinction well enough, but evidently he fudged it for his own
purposes. Reader beware...
>
>> Will Johnson again:
>> > As for why this is important. Understanding how institutions are
>> > created, dismantled, or recognized at various times is important in a
>> > general sense. It's all part of history. You are misjudging this as
>> > an attempt to rewrite the history of "Christianity", when what it is,
>> > is an attempt to uncover part of the Eastern past, that has been
>> > overlooked.
>>
>> It can't be "overlooked" if it was never factual in the first place. You
>> have not established that the Boswell interpretation is even "closely
>> parallel" to the facts. And as for being "important", the orthodox view
>> of
>>
>> sacraments is the nub of the question as to whether or not same-sex
>> marriage
>> was ever allowed by the Church.>
>
> Yes even things that aren't "factual" as you say can be overlooked. We
> could have a book, in Greek, which is translated into English, except
> Chapter 8
> which discusses ways to raise Satan... Happens all the time. It's not up
> to me to establish what Boswell wrote, he did that himself. The orthodox
> view is not what's important here, at least not that view today. That's
> the
> entire basis of the work. That the view changed from then to now. And
> that
> at any rate, no marriages were "sacraments" anyway.
This is simply wrong as to marriage not having been a sacrament. And as to
the view of the Church allegedly changing from then to now, if that can
happen what is the value of even trying to demonastrate that same-sex unions
were once blessed and then somehow fell into disfavour? Just because the
Church is supposed to be changeable on such a matter it doesn't follow that
it will change again in the desired direction. The views of God do not
change in orthodox teaching: therefore if same-sex unions were ever
sacramental they must always be so; and if they were once defined as such
then the doctrine could not change. The belief is that God - in the person
of Jesus Christ - established the Church and does not allow it to fall into
doctrinal error.
>>
>> Will Johnson:
>> > Since all of society was "Christian", I suppose you could
>> > call this a part of that religion, but it, like marriage in general,
>> > was merely the recognition of an institution which *had already
>> > existed* prior to the enthronement of Christianity as the religion de
>> > jure.
>>
>> I don't know what this is intended to mean. Obviously no-one supposed
>> that
>>
>> Christ invented marriage at Cana, he is only supposed to have sanctified
>> an
>> institution that already existed. How does that go to prove that Basil
>> was
>>
>> somehow married to another man? >>
>
>
> Modern-day back-creations don't really work for me. Christ said nothing
> of
> the sort, he didn't even *preside* in that way at the wedding, and in fact
> we don't know that anyone did. A sacrament without an officer to perform
> it? In fact marriages were typically conducted as "I marry you, you marry
> me"
> the parties decided it, and their friends recognized it, there was no
> officer to join them at all. The same way divorces were "I divorce you, I
> divorce you, I divorce you" with witnesses.
No-one said that Christ "presided" at the wedding - he implicitly sanctified
the institution of marriage by attending a celebration of it, as an outward
sign that this sacrament came about through divine grace. If you want to
discuss Christian teaching sensibly, first learn what it was.
You wote: "one of those variations is that there was no divine vision at
all", not by any means the same as "not all sources state this". If you want
to revise statements that have been misunderstood - unexceptionable in a
discussion forum like this - there is nothing to be gained by pretending in
the process that these were different in the first place.
> It was not different from marriage in going through it with two men, many
> men have gone through marriage with two women., and more. Not
> simultaneously, or even, as far as we know that close in time, and we
> don't know that
> Basil did either. He obviously lived with one man for a time, then went
> into
> the employ of another, after which date, he then joined with John. For
> all we
> know his first husband had died years before.
The sources make it plain as can be that Basil did not live with the men he
made his brothers - Nikolaos helped him and then Basil moved on, not
forgetting the obligation he had assumed; with Ioannes in the Peloponnese
there was obviously no intention of cohabiting - Basil only stayed there
while recovering from an illness, and he soon went back to Constantinople.
Then later he sent for Ioannes and his mother, to fulfill the social
obligation he had incurred through adelphopoiesis.
>>
>> Will Johnson:
>> > As far as an erotic component, the source that claims that his
>> > next "employer" was always on the lookout for "well-built
>> > masculine and strong fellows" to be quite direct.
>>
>> I replied:
>> > > So what? Is everyone who ever worked for a living supposed to
>> > > share the proclivities of their employer?
>>
>> Will Johnson:
>> > The source states that Basil was chosen, because he fit this
>> > requirement, in the extreme in fact, as it states in a manner.
>>
>> Leo Grammaticus wrote that Basil was recommended to Theophilus - who had
>> complained that he couldn't find suitable grooms - because he was tall
>> and
>>
>> strong, and he was evidently an expert horseman. The statement that
>> Theophilus like to dress handsome men in silks, etc, is not applied to
>> Basil. But anyway the exploitation or harrassment of employees to gratify
>> an
>> employer's tastes do not reflect on their own sexuality. >>
>
>
> Yes and no. Basil's expertise with horses (or rather A horse) was not
> necessarily known at the time he supposedly demonstarted his ability to
> charm
> this one horse. Because he did, he was then appointed to be master of the
> stables, but we don't know that anyone knew it before hand.
You imagine that a physician would commend someone as groom to a relative of
the emperor without knowing whether or not the man could handle a horse? He
turned out to be extraordinarily good at the job and he was promoted. NOT
because he was big and handsome, that presumably by your interpretation
would have led to his starting at the top.
> The continuator does not only say "tall and strong" but rather that
> Theophilus "had a great interest in well-born, good-looking, well-built
> men, who
> were very masculine and strong." and when he saw how expectional Basil was
> in
> those respects he apopinted him his protostratorius (chief equerry). And
> then goes on to say that Basil "was loved by him more and more with each
> passing day."
>
> Yes I agree its possible that Theophilus minions weren't into men, but
> they
> were at least willing to be so-used in order to get ahead.
No source says this, or even remotely implies that Basil underwent
ceremonial adelphopoiesis with Theophilus. There is simply nothing but
modern imagination to connect these two men in a homosexual relationship.
There is no full liturgy of adelphopoiesis in Barberini 336, just a prayer
for the blessing of this bond. For all we know from this it might have been
no more than an interlude in another order of service rather than a
particular ceremony on its own, and we don't know exactly how it was
conducted.
> Ah here's the answer to an earlier point, he states that marriage was not
> "declared a sacrament" until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215.
Nonsense - marriage was DEFINED by Fourth Lateran Council as a sacrament
that occurs when two baptised people are voluntarily joined in a godly
union, and impediments to this were elaborated. The Chruch doesn't invent
sacraments, it only confirms that these exist.
>>
>> I continued:
>> > > but in any event I did not say that the "ritual ceremonies" were
>> > > not related. You can find relationships between any two rites
>> > > involving prayer and blessing.
>>
>> Will Johnson:
>> > Perhaps, but not so parallel.
>>
>> Again, you are assuming a "parallel" that you have not proved. A close
>> parallel to marriage would have to give explicit sanction to a
>> relationship
>> that IN THE VIEW OF THE CHURCH was: (a) instituted by God, (b) exclusive
>> of
>> any others, (c) sanctifying sexual congress between the couple, and (d)
>> indissoluble except by death. >>
>
>
> I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm not assuming a parallel either.
> There's a middle in there somewhere.
> I dispute all four points you make above. They are all predicated on
> things which are not on the table.
> No marriages of this time were "indissoluble except by death". None of
> them. Not one :)
> Why so adamant? Are you seriously going to state that there was no such
> thing as divorce, when we have countless examples?
>
> Who is talking about "in the view of the church" except you?
Um, Boswell for starters.
> The priests were blessing a union which was already de facto, that holds
> true in same-sex or other-sex joinings. It's only conservative redactors
> who are claiming that the church even cared at this point very much.
The whole argment is over whether or not the Church sanctioned same-sex
unions.
> There is no evidence, in fact lots against, that the church thought an
> other-sex
> marriage was "exclusive" and even if they had so what?
This is perhaps the most preposterous statement ever posted to SGM. The
fulminations of churchmen against adultery are a vast body of writing. Where
is there a scrap of evidence that the Chruch thought the marital
relationship not to be exclusive to the two people involved?
> Married men had lovers all the time, even Michael and Basil each did, when
> married.
And there was of course no liturgy to bless their extra-marital adventures.
> So where does this exclusive part come from anyway? The marriage rituals
> do not mention sex at all. None of them. So how do we know what the
> church did or didn't think at this time? We don't. And it doesn't matter.
> The laity were not subordinated to the church in all things.
This is beyond absurdity: the claim put forward by Boswell is that the
_Church_ sanctioned same-sex unions. And "other-ex" unions, marriages, were
consummated by sexual intercourse - non-consummation could be grounds for
annulment. You don't get to make up canon law and history as you go along,
trying to dig yourself out of one hole by excavating a bigger one.
>>
>> I wrote:
>> > > The point you fail to acknowledge is that no-one has yet established
>> > > any exclusive personal commitment in adelphopoiesis that parallels
>> > > - closely or otherwise - marriage. For all we know Basil might have
>> > > gone through this with ten or twenty other men besides Nikolaos
>> > > and Ioannes.
>>
>> Will Johnson:
>> > And any other-sex married partners could have as well, this does not
>> > define exclusivity. Henry 8 had six wives. We happen to know they
>> > weren't simultaneous but in most cases, we only assume things like
>> > that, because we can't fathom bigamy not going reported.
>>
>> Serially exclusive, even for Henry VIII. Whether or not bigamy is
>> reported
>>
>> is beside the point, since it was explicitly, absolutely prohibited by
>> canon
>> law. >>
>
>
> Canon law does not determine what people actually do. Henry 8 had
> mistresses while married. I guess the church excommunicated him then? No
> actually
> it didn't. At least not for that.
No-one has said, or suggested in any way, that married men did not engage in
sex on the side, including in some cases with other men. This is quite
obviously beside the point at issue. There is no value in creating this
straw man to distract from the argument.
Do you even know what "de jure" means? If the Church was blessing de facto
same-sex unions as de jure then it was sanctioning them. You can't have it
both ways. You may not have a grip on objectivity and logic, but you don't
get to reinvent these to suit yourself.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> The sources make it plain as can be that Basil did not live with the men
> he
> made his brothers - Nikolaos helped him and then Basil moved on, >>
The sources plainly states that he was his companion and housemate.
What are you talking about now? Nicholas "helped" him, by bathing him,
clothing him, then joining him in a ritual brotherhood ceremony, after which
they lived together. Gee willikers that sounds like an awfully forward way to
"help". He could have just given him a few coins you know, like most
homeless street beggers.
As to your nasty comment about the email chevron's, I use four different
email clients, as I have occasion. I control NONE of them, is that clear, mr
snarky idiot bitch? (And I say that in the nicest way.) All your drivelly
implications aside, why don't you learn something about how email clients
work before you go off all half cocked assuming each person has control over
how they work or don't to your satisfaction :) Have a nice day.
PS I have no idea why you replied to this again, as it's quite obvious it's
merely a repetition of an early message, just now, for some reason
(obviously my psychic powers) making it's way to the list.
Will "Just here to make friends" Johnson
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.4.129634148...@rootsweb.com...
> In a message dated 1/29/2011 2:25:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> pss...@bigpond.com writes:
>
>
>> The sources make it plain as can be that Basil did not live with the men
>> he
>> made his brothers - Nikolaos helped him and then Basil moved on, >>
>
> The sources plainly states that he was his companion and housemate.
> What are you talking about now? Nicholas "helped" him, by bathing him,
> clothing him, then joining him in a ritual brotherhood ceremony, after
> which
> they lived together. Gee willikers that sounds like an awfully forward
> way to
> "help". He could have just given him a few coins you know, like most
> homeless street beggers.
The sources make plain that Nikolaos helped Basil and then they went their
separate ways - Basil to work for Theophilus, Nikolaos to stay on at his
chirch until he was appointed to a high ecclesiatical office after Basil
became emperor. There is NO suggestion that these men cohabited as lifelong
or even temporary sexual partners. That is Boswell's invention.
> As to your nasty comment about the email chevron's, I use four different
> email clients, as I have occasion. I control NONE of them, is that clear,
> mr
> snarky idiot bitch? (And I say that in the nicest way.)
Um, you obviously control which one of them you use, and now you are using
one that is compatible with Rootsweb and/or Google. That is progress. As for
your understanding of my point, you have evidently regressed.
> All your drivelly implications aside, why don't you learn something about
> how email clients work before you go off all half cocked assuming each
> person has control over how they work or don't to your satisfaction :)
> Have a nice day.
Thank you for proving my point while you rant about it: clearly you can post
emails in as format that is convenient for replying if you choose.
> PS I have no idea why you replied to this again, as it's quite obvious
> it's
> merely a repetition of an early message, just now, for some reason
> (obviously my psychic powers) making it's way to the list.
And that is of course why I replied to it on-list when it appeared there.
You don't get to control the archive - when nonsense appears there it is
open for reply.
As for your abuse, it is sadly all of a piece with your incompetence and
hypocrisy - you contribute very little to this newsgroup except for
demanding sources from others, yet when put on the same spot about your own
assertions you evade while posting more garbage and then resort to vitriol.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
>
>
> <WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.4.129634148...@rootsweb.com...
> > In a message dated 1/29/2011 2:25:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> >
> >
> >> The sources make it plain as can be that Basil did not live with the
> men
> >> he
> >> made his brothers - Nikolaos helped him and then Basil moved on, >>
> >
> > The sources plainly states that he was his companion and housemate.
> > What are you talking about now? Nicholas "helped" him, by bathing him,
> > clothing him, then joining him in a ritual brotherhood ceremony, after
> > which
> > they lived together. Gee willikers that sounds like an awfully forward
> > way to
> > "help". He could have just given him a few coins you know, like most
> > homeless street beggers.
>
> The sources make plain that Nikolaos helped Basil and then they went their
>
> separate ways - Basil to work for Theophilus, Nikolaos to stay on at his
> chirch until he was appointed to a high ecclesiatical office after Basil
> became emperor. There is NO suggestion that these men cohabited as lifelo
> ng
> or even temporary sexual partners. That is Boswell's invention.
Wrong. The sources state plainly that he was his companion and housemate.
The Chronicle of George in Istrin.
That you can't read this, or won't is not my concern
"sharing a common life" "of one life and table"
That you attack Boswell, for your inability to read the sources, shows that
there is no point in continuing to discuss it.
>
> > As to your nasty comment about the email chevron's, I use four different
> > email clients, as I have occasion. I control NONE of them, is that
> clear,
> > mr
> > snarky idiot bitch? (And I say that in the nicest way.)
>
> Um, you obviously control which one of them you use, and now you are using
>
> one that is compatible with Rootsweb and/or Google. That is progress. As
> for
> your understanding of my point, you have evidently regressed.
>
Dear person who refuses to comprehend.
I use four different clients at various points and times. That this one
suits you, does not change that in any way.
Tomorrow or later today, I may use another which will set you off again,
because you cannot seem to get it through your skull that I have no idea to
what you refer, no idea how to change it, and no control over what one email
client does or doesnt do. Get it? I did not write AOL, I not write any
email client.
> > All your drivelly implications aside, why don't you learn something
> about
> > how email clients work before you go off all half cocked assuming each
> > person has control over how they work or don't to your satisfaction :)
> > Have a nice day.
>
> Thank you for proving my point while you rant about it: clearly you can
> post
> emails in as format that is convenient for replying if you choose.
>
Or you can understand English.
> > PS I have no idea why you replied to this again, as it's quite obvious
> > it's
> > merely a repetition of an early message, just now, for some reason
> > (obviously my psychic powers) making it's way to the list.
>
> And that is of course why I replied to it on-list when it appeared there.
> You don't get to control the archive - when nonsense appears there it is
> open for reply.
>
> As for your abuse, it is sadly all of a piece with your incompetence and
> hypocrisy - you contribute very little to this newsgroup except for
> demanding sources from others, yet when put on the same spot about your
> own
> assertions you evade while posting more garbage and then resort to
> vitriol.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
As for my abuse. Pot kettle, look at yourself. Stop attacking me for what
Boswell wrote which I am merely quoting, stop attacking me for things not
under my control, such as email clients, and I'll stop attacking you for
being an aggressive bullhead :)
Will "Have a Mice Day" Johnson
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.6.129634361...@rootsweb.com...
You are misled again by Boswell and your own quite evident ignorance of this
particular source - the specific word used by Georgios, in the redaction
edited by Istrin, for the love between Bail and Kikolaos is "agape". Look it
up. It means "the selfless love of one person for another without sexual
implications (especially love that is spiritual in nature)". It is commonly
used for familial love.
If you want a source available online that discusses the sources in detail,
try to find 'Sagen und Legenden über Kaiser Basileios I' by Gyula Moravcsik
in *Dumbarton Oaks Papers* 15 (1961) pp. 59-126 - my link to this won't
help, as it is by subscription, but many libraries will provide it.
>> > As to your nasty comment about the email chevron's, I use four
>> > different
>> > email clients, as I have occasion. I control NONE of them, is that
>> clear,
>> > mr
>> > snarky idiot bitch? (And I say that in the nicest way.)
>>
>> Um, you obviously control which one of them you use, and now you are
>> using
>>
>> one that is compatible with Rootsweb and/or Google. That is progress. As
>> for
>> your understanding of my point, you have evidently regressed.
>>
>
> Dear person who refuses to comprehend.
> I use four different clients at various points and times. That this one
> suits you, does not change that in any way.
> Tomorrow or later today, I may use another which will set you off again,
> because you cannot seem to get it through your skull that I have no idea
> to
> what you refer, no idea how to change it, and no control over what one
> email
> client does or doesnt do. Get it? I did not write AOL, I not write any
> email client.
It's not just me but the whole newsgroup wwho are potentially
inconvenienced, and of course if I find a problem with posts I'm entitled to
point this out on my own behalf anyway. You plainly do have control over the
format of postings, whether you choose to exercise it or not, so your
statement to the contrary was false. If you want to go on using the
incompatible client, that is your business - but it's absurd to complain
that others complain when it is a nuisance to them.
I am not the one making claims and then avoiding questions: I have made
specific replies to each of the (very few) specific assertions and citations
you have offered. Most of your posts are full of vague and erroneous claims
about Christian doctrine that you obviously don't comprehend, and then you
get hostile when corrected. Your subjective reactions are telling.
I don't pretend to be courteous to anyone imposing nonsense and falsehood
here. The interest in same-sex unions is yours, not mine; and you have
promoted an entirely misconceived view about adelphopoiesis, which does
happen to interest me. You are making posts on the subject, not Boswell -
unless you are channelling him. You are responsible for your own statements.
And you have utterly failed to substantiate a single one of them.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> It's not just me but the whole newsgroup wwho are potentially
> inconvenienced, and of course if I find a problem with posts I'm entitled
> to
> point this out on my own behalf anyway. You plainly do have control over
> the
> format of postings, whether you choose to exercise it or not, so your
> statement to the contrary was false. If you want to go on using the
> incompatible client, that is your business - but it's absurd to complain
> that others complain when it is a nuisance to them. >>
>
I'm not complaining that are complaining.
I'm stating yet again that I "plainly" as you put it, do not have control
over how the email client I'm using formats or doesn't anything it does.
I didn't write it. There are no controls within it, of which I'm at all
aware, of any way to change it's characteristics.
That the one I'm using at the moment agrees with you, in no way dictates
that another one, which I'm constrained to use, which operates completely
outside of my control, does not.
That you can't understand the very simple point, that I may have to use
certain email clients that don't agree with you, is not fathomable to me. Are
you under the impression that I have constant control over the environment
in which I must work?
It's pointless to continue on this, as I cannot change what occurs. It's
not important to me whether or not you believe it, so I'm going to drop this,
even should you reply yet again, pointing out yet again, something over
which I have no control.
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> You are misled again by Boswell and your own quite evident ignorance of
> this
> particular source - the specific word used by Georgios, in the redaction
> edited by Istrin, for the love between Bail and Kikolaos is "agape". Look
> it
> up. It means "the selfless love of one person for another without sexual
> implications (especially love that is spiritual in nature)". It is
> commonly
> used for familial love. >>
>
This is not the word in question here, in fact I don't see agape at all in
the transliteration given.
Rather he specifically points out Chroncicle of George in Instrin 2:5 and
then gives a long line of Greek, but the word he states means "sharing a
common life" is not this short, it looks something like... onodiaiton or
something like that. I don't think I'm making all of that correctly. I don't have
the entire alphabet memorized.
His use of "one house and table" is from the Old Church Slavonic version of
this same passage, if I'm understanding the footnote correctly.
Again, although you want to continue characterizing Boswell as misleading,
he is quoting the passage and then stating what the word means.
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.11.129634722...@rootsweb.com...
Again a post that makes its own chevrons - "control" is evidently too strong
a word, but "choice" perhaps covers it. Why you should be "constrained" to
use other email formats outside your control is a mystery of no interest.
As for Nikolaos and Basil, I have not disputed that they shared lodging at
one stage - this is obvious, since the whole gist of the story is that
Nikolaos took Basil in from the street near the church, fed, clothed and
housed him, when he first arrived in Constantinople.
The contentious points are whether or not this was understood as an
exclusive and/or lasting arrangement, and whether or not it can be assumed
to involve sexual intercourse between the "made" brothers under the sanction
of the Church.
The answer to the first point is implicit in the story - the men did not
stay together for long, and Basil was free to enter the same bond with
another man shortly afterward while Nikolaos was still living (the later
benefits to him are included in the redaction of Giorgios edited by Istrin).
And since Giorgios used the word "agape" in this context it is clear enough
that he meant to imply to Greek readers - if indeed this idea even occurred
to him or them - that the relationship was not sexual. The phrase in
Istrin's edition is at 11, lines 35-36.
And Boswell is playing fast and loose if he needs to give a translation from
a translation of a source written long after Basil's time anyway.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
I don't believe that we know whether they were together for a week or three
years.
Are you certain it states "shortly" afterwards in some way?
A translation from a translation? What do you mean. He quotes George
directly, in Greek, and then explains one of the Greek words. He then quotes
another source, evidently it's supposed to be a translation of this one, into
Old Church Slavonic. I suppose his point here was merely to re iterate that
another author thought the situation was the same -- so that if this was a
mistaken impression, it was an ancient mistaken impression. I can't say
exactly what was in Boswell's mind that he quoted two sections, but that's how
I assume he was trying to state it, that they reinforce each other.
Peter Stewart
Actually I too am playing fast and loose here, from carlessness - the
specific phrase "ten allelon agapen" was used for the mutual brotherly love
between Basil and Simbatios.
The phrase used for the arrangement with Nikolaos (Istrin edition 5, 34) was
"pneumatikon adelphon epoiesato kai omorophon eiche kai omodiaiton",
([Nikolaos] made him a brother and shared his roof and meals with him).
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.22.129635082...@rootsweb.com...
> In a message dated 1/29/2011 5:06:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> pss...@bigpond.com writes:
>
>
>> The answer to the first point is implicit in the story - the men did not
>> stay together for long, and Basil was free to enter the same bond with
>> another man shortly afterward while Nikolaos was still living (the later
>> benefits to him are included in the redaction of Giorgios edited by
>> Istrin).
>> And since Giorgios used the word "agape" in this context it is clear
>> enough
>> that he meant to imply to Greek readers - if indeed this idea even
>> occurred
>> to him or them - that the relationship was not sexual. The phrase in
>> Istrin's edition is at 11, lines 35-36.
>>
>> And Boswell is playing fast and loose if he needs to give a translation
>> from
>> a translation of a source written long after Basil's time anyway.
>>
>>
>
> I don't believe that we know whether they were together for a week or
> three
> years.
> Are you certain it states "shortly" afterwards in some way?
What difference does it make whether it was for a week or three years, since
it was clearly not a permanent union? Basil went to work for Theophilus on
the recommendation of a biological brother of Nikolaos - we don't even know
how far adelphopoiesis extended to the siblings and other family of the
parties, though we do know that Basil gave the title "mother of the emperor"
to Danelis who was biologically mother to his "made" brother Ioannes. It's
neither here not there how long after arriving Basil left the house of
Nikolaos, the point is that according to the sources he was not exclusively
bound to his host and spiritual brother for life or to the exclusion of
others, i.e. their relationship did not "closely parallel" marriage but was
far more like a godbrotherhood version of godparenthood.
> A translation from a translation? What do you mean. He quotes George
> directly, in Greek, and then explains one of the Greek words. He then
> quotes
> another source, evidently it's supposed to be a translation of this one,
> into
> Old Church Slavonic. I suppose his point here was merely to re iterate
> that
> another author thought the situation was the same -- so that if this was a
> mistaken impression, it was an ancient mistaken impression. I can't say
> exactly what was in Boswell's mind that he quoted two sections, but that's
> how
> I assume he was trying to state it, that they reinforce each other.
However this source, written well after Basil's time, was redacted or
translated even later cannot prove that the Church sanctioned homosexual
unions. The original Greek (and I dare say the Old Church Slavonic version)
simply doesn't state anything of the kind.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> What difference does it make whether it was for a week or three years,
> since
> it was clearly not a permanent union?
I never claimed, and he doesn't, that all same-sex bonding had to be
permanent, that's something you've added.
By the way, was there a marriage that was permanent? Whose? Or did you
mean until divorce?
Basil went to work for Theophilus on
>
> the recommendation of a biological brother of Nikolaos - we don't even
> know
> how far adelphopoiesis extended to the siblings and other family of the
> parties, though we do know that Basil gave the title "mother of the
> emperor"
> to Danelis who was biologically mother to his "made" brother Ioannes.
We do know that at least at one time, it was considered consiguinous (or at
least some people thought) for the relatives of one brother to marry
another. We know this because there is specific legal or canonical discussion
about this very issue, and a decision.
> It's
> neither here not there how long after arriving Basil left the house of
> Nikolaos, the point is that according to the sources he was not
> exclusively
> bound to his host and spiritual brother for life or to the exclusion of
> others, i.e. their relationship did not "closely parallel" marriage but
> was
> far more like a godbrotherhood version of godparenthood.
>
Or perhaps they divorced.
> > A translation from a translation? What do you mean. He quotes George
> > directly, in Greek, and then explains one of the Greek words. He then
> > quotes
> > another source, evidently it's supposed to be a translation of this one,
>
> > into
> > Old Church Slavonic. I suppose his point here was merely to re iterate
> > that
> > another author thought the situation was the same -- so that if this was
> a
> > mistaken impression, it was an ancient mistaken impression. I can't say
> > exactly what was in Boswell's mind that he quoted two sections, but
> that's
> > how
> > I assume he was trying to state it, that they reinforce each other.
>
> However this source, written well after Basil's time, was redacted or
> translated even later cannot prove that the Church sanctioned homosexual
> unions. The original Greek (and I dare say the Old Church Slavonic
> version)
> simply doesn't state anything of the kind.
>
> Peter Stewart
>
>
Yes the original greek states "sharing a common life" per Boswell, and the
Old Church Slavonic states "of one life and table" per Boswell.
I can't say how long after Basil lived this original Greek source is, but
it's one of the primary sources given for his life.
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.28.129635342...@rootsweb.com...
> In a message dated 1/29/2011 5:55:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> pss...@bigpond.com writes:
>
>
>> What difference does it make whether it was for a week or three years,
>> since
>> it was clearly not a permanent union?
>
> I never claimed, and he doesn't, that all same-sex bonding had to be
> permanent, that's something you've added.
> By the way, was there a marriage that was permanent? Whose? Or did you
> mean until divorce?
No, of course not - according to orthodox Christian belief divorce cannot
not be in contemplation when the sacrament of marriage takes place, as the
working of divine grace cannot be compromised; and as everyone knows it is
meant to be as permanent as life itself, "till death us do part".
You claimed that adelphopoiesis was "closely parallel" to marriage, of which
this life-long anticipation is (or certianly was in the Byzantine empire,
and throughout medieval Christendom, if not in the USA today) an _essential_
aspect. Not discretionary, not optional.
You keep shifting the emphasis. No-one has suggested that homosexuality did
occur in the past. No-one has said that homosexual men might never have
undergone adephopoiesis as an imitation of marriage in their own minds, but
rather that the Church did not sanction the practice for this purpose as
Boswell argued.
> Basil went to work for Theophilus on
>>
>> the recommendation of a biological brother of Nikolaos - we don't even
>> know
>> how far adelphopoiesis extended to the siblings and other family of the
>> parties, though we do know that Basil gave the title "mother of the
>> emperor"
>> to Danelis who was biologically mother to his "made" brother Ioannes.
>
> We do know that at least at one time, it was considered consiguinous (or
> at
> least some people thought) for the relatives of one brother to marry
> another. We know this because there is specific legal or canonical
> discussion
> about this very issue, and a decision.
There was never a prohibition of marriage between the siblings or more
distant relatives of men who shared the bond of adelphopoiesis. The canon
law simply didn't recognise it, and as explained before it was not a
sacrament anyway. In this respect it was less than parallel even to the
spiritual affinity created by godparentood, that did become an impediment to
marriage. You can't make up this stuff as you go along.
>> It's
>> neither here not there how long after arriving Basil left the house of
>> Nikolaos, the point is that according to the sources he was not
>> exclusively
>> bound to his host and spiritual brother for life or to the exclusion of
>> others, i.e. their relationship did not "closely parallel" marriage but
>> was
>> far more like a godbrotherhood version of godparenthood.
>>
>
> Or perhaps they divorced.
What self-serving tripe you keep throwing at this newsgroup - if you can't
argue a rational case, give up. The sources explicitly narrate how Basil
FULFILLED his obligations later to Nikolaos and to Ioannes. There is not the
slightest implication that this was some sort of belated alimony to divorced
partners.
Then Boswell has manipulated the Greek, since there is no term equating to
"a common life". Nor does the Greek say "one life and table", terms patently
loaded by your "authority" towards his idea of union, but rather that the
two men shared "the same roof" and "the same food". I quoted this before.
Why not try thinking this through from the terminology instead of relying
solely on Boswell's self-deceit? Have you ever seen a medieval source
decribing "other-sex" marriage as the process of a man "making a sister" and
then "sharing the same roof and table" with her? Of course not: the
supposedly "close" parallel is fictitious.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
>
> <WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.28.129635342...@rootsweb.com...
>> In a message dated 1/29/2011 5:55:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>> pss...@bigpond.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> What difference does it make whether it was for a week or three years,
>>> since
>>> it was clearly not a permanent union?
>>
>> I never claimed, and he doesn't, that all same-sex bonding had to be
>> permanent, that's something you've added.
>> By the way, was there a marriage that was permanent? Whose? Or did you
>> mean until divorce?
>
> No, of course not - according to orthodox Christian belief divorce cannot
> not be in contemplation when the sacrament of marriage takes place, as the
> working of divine grace cannot be compromised; and as everyone knows it is
> meant to be as permanent as life itself, "till death us do part".
>
> You claimed that adelphopoiesis was "closely parallel" to marriage, of
> which this life-long anticipation is (or certianly was in the Byzantine
> empire, and throughout medieval Christendom, if not in the USA today) an
> _essential_ aspect. Not discretionary, not optional.
>
> You keep shifting the emphasis. No-one has suggested that homosexuality
> did occur in the past.
Before Will Johnson indulges in another of his ludicrous quibbles about
meaning, I naturally intended to write "No-one has suggested that
homosexuality did not occur in the past".
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> <WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.28.129635342...@rootsweb.com...
> > In a message dated 1/29/2011 5:55:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > pss...@bigpond.com writes:
> >
> >
> >> What difference does it make whether it was for a week or three years,
> >> since
> >> it was clearly not a permanent union?
> >
> > I never claimed, and he doesn't, that all same-sex bonding had to be
> > permanent, that's something you've added.
> > By the way, was there a marriage that was permanent? Whose? Or did you
> > mean until divorce?
>
> No, of course not - according to orthodox Christian belief divorce cannot
> not be in contemplation when the sacrament of marriage takes place, as the
>
> working of divine grace cannot be compromised; and as everyone knows it is
>
> meant to be as permanent as life itself, "till death us do part".
>
> You claimed that adelphopoiesis was "closely parallel" to marriage, of
> which
> this life-long anticipation is (or certianly was in the Byzantine empire,
> and throughout medieval Christendom, if not in the USA today) an
> _essential_
> aspect. Not discretionary, not optional.
>
> You keep shifting the emphasis. No-one has suggested that homosexuality
> did
> occur in the past. No-one has said that homosexual men might never have
> undergone adephopoiesis as an imitation of marriage in their own minds,
> but
> rather that the Church did not sanction the practice for this purpose as
> Boswell argued.
I understand this is your opinion. Boswell differs, and he gives many
examples, that to my mind, show that the Church, or at least *these* churchmen
presiding, did know what they were doing, and what it was for. I understand
that you differ, but that's not a very convincing argument in the face of
these citations.
By the way, again "I" didn't differ. This is what Boswell is stating.
That the ceremonies have many close parallels to other-sex marriage. And he
gives examples with copious footnotes.
I don't know why you're stating that divorce cannot be in mind... and "till
death do us part" and so on, as there is no evidence presented here that
these rituals differ in any regard in that way, from other-sex rituals. It's
not persuasive to me, to present cases which have ended to then turn and say
see they weren't permanent and therefore the ritual wasn't meant to be
permanent. We could use other-sex cases in the exact same way. There are cases
of male bonding, which were apparently meant to be and actually were
permanent and the mere fact that we don't have a document asserting exactly their
names in a marriage contract, doesn't mean there wasn't one. It doesn't
mean there was either, but neither case is a good argument.
>
> > Basil went to work for Theophilus on
> >>
> >> the recommendation of a biological brother of Nikolaos - we don't even
> >> know
> >> how far adelphopoiesis extended to the siblings and other family of the
> >> parties, though we do know that Basil gave the title "mother of the
> >> emperor"
> >> to Danelis who was biologically mother to his "made" brother Ioannes.
> >
> > We do know that at least at one time, it was considered consiguinous (or
>
> > at
> > least some people thought) for the relatives of one brother to marry
> > another. We know this because there is specific legal or canonical
> > discussion
> > about this very issue, and a decision.
>
> There was never a prohibition of marriage between the siblings or more
> distant relatives of men who shared the bond of adelphopoiesis. The canon
> law simply didn't recognise it, and as explained before it was not a
> sacrament anyway. In this respect it was less than parallel even to the
> spiritual affinity created by godparentood, that did become an impediment
> to
> marriage. You can't make up this stuff as you go along.
And I did not state that there was. What I stated exactly was at we know
at least at one time, that it was considered consiguinous (or at least some
people thought so) for the relatives of one brother to marry another. We
know this because there is specific legal or canonical discussion about this
very issue with a decision.
Where in that do you see "prohibition" or "recognize" or "sacrament" or any
other thing like that?
The law can speak about many things it doesn't "recognize" as being
"legitimate" or "prohibited" without even mentioning which!
And again Peter, I'm not making this up, it's cited, with footnotes in
Boswell. And he as well is not making it up, he cites an ancient source on this
very point.
>
> >> It's
> >> neither here not there how long after arriving Basil left the house of
> >> Nikolaos, the point is that according to the sources he was not
> >> exclusively
> >> bound to his host and spiritual brother for life or to the exclusion of
> >> others, i.e. their relationship did not "closely parallel" marriage but
> >> was
> >> far more like a godbrotherhood version of godparenthood.
> >>
> >
> > Or perhaps they divorced.
>
> What self-serving tripe you keep throwing at this newsgroup - if you can't
>
> argue a rational case, give up. The sources explicitly narrate how Basil
> FULFILLED his obligations later to Nikolaos and to Ioannes. There is not
> the
> slightest implication that this was some sort of belated alimony to
> divorced
> partners.
I did not use the phrase "belated alimony to divorced partners". But
"fulfilled" is a suspect word. Just as the idea that there was a vision is
suspect if there is a source in which it does not occur. Again Peter you are
attacking me personally instead of attacking the source. This is Boswell
speaking and I wish you would stop attacking my PERSON as if I were the
antagonist instead of trying to point out the assumptions you're making in your
replies.
The "slight implication" is that it occurred. The assumption is why.
I did not state that the Greek says "one life and table". I stated exactly
that the Greek omodiaiton means "sharing a common life" while the Old
Church Slavonic states "of one life and table".
The parallel in not in this terminology at any rate.
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.39.129636029...@rootsweb.com...
You just keep harping on with these ignorant assertions as if the entire
thread - that everyone else can read - had not happened.
Do you actually enjoy having your extremely silly and illogical protests
turned into mincemeat?
It's not Boswell making your posts, it's Will Johnson. You are responsible
for your statements, and for relying so blindly on a poor authority.
And it's not my "opinion" of Christian doctrine that I'm stating and
restating here, but the facts. These are open to interpretation, but not
reinvention. If divorce is in mind when a wedding takes place this could
become grounds for annulment - the vows exchanged have to be voluntary and
unconditional. What may happen in other Christian denominations today is
completely irrelevant to the teaching of the Orthodox Church in the 9th
century, that Boswell was and you are so determined to misrepresent.
People thought it _might_ be a problem, when the practice had become so much
less common that they were unfamiliar with the consequences of it, and so
they turned to the ecclesiastical authorities with questions. And the answer
was No, adelphopoiesisdoes did not create affinity or an impediment to the
marriage of biological siblings to the parties. That's that, the question
was closed and it's not open to review now. Not by Boswell, and not by you
or me.
> Where in that do you see "prohibition" or "recognize" or "sacrament" or
> any
> other thing like that?
> The law can speak about many things it doesn't "recognize" as being
> "legitimate" or "prohibited" without even mentioning which!
If the law does not recognise something then it does not speak about it.
When something is enshrined in law, or prohibited by law, it is recognised
by the law. Adelphoiesis was not in Basil's time. Much later it was, because
customs developed and it came to be frowned upon to some extent in some
quarters - but, as I said before, not at the imperial court within a few
years of its being described as "not legal" in a handbook.
> And again Peter, I'm not making this up, it's cited, with footnotes in
> Boswell. And he as well is not making it up, he cites an ancient source
> on this
> very point.
Plainly you have no idea what Boswell actually proved or manipulated from
the sources he cited - even after you were given a transliteration and
translation of a source at issue you repeated the misstatement "as per
Boswell" that it said "sharing a common life" and "of one life and table".
He was making it up, and you are following in his footsteps.
>>
>> >> It's
>> >> neither here not there how long after arriving Basil left the house of
>> >> Nikolaos, the point is that according to the sources he was not
>> >> exclusively
>> >> bound to his host and spiritual brother for life or to the exclusion
>> >> of
>> >> others, i.e. their relationship did not "closely parallel" marriage
>> >> but
>> >> was
>> >> far more like a godbrotherhood version of godparenthood.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Or perhaps they divorced.
>>
>> What self-serving tripe you keep throwing at this newsgroup - if you
>> can't
>>
>> argue a rational case, give up. The sources explicitly narrate how Basil
>> FULFILLED his obligations later to Nikolaos and to Ioannes. There is not
>> the
>> slightest implication that this was some sort of belated alimony to
>> divorced
>> partners.
>
> I did not use the phrase "belated alimony to divorced partners".
I didn't quote you as saying that, I wrote: "There is not the slightest
implication that this was some sort of belated alimony..." You had directly
suggested that Basil might have been "divorced" from his made brother
Nikolaos.
> But "fulfilled" is a suspect word. Just as the idea that there was a
> vision is
> suspect if there is a source in which it does not occur. Again Peter you
> are
> attacking me personally instead of attacking the source. This is Boswell
> speaking and I wish you would stop attacking my PERSON as if I were the
> antagonist instead of trying to point out the assumptions you're making in
> your
> replies.
You are making these posts, not Boswell. And you are going beyond him on
your own bat anyway, as he would have destroyed his reputation beyond a
shadow of controversy by some of the absurd statements you have made in this
thread.
You keep repeating assertions without reference to contradictory evidence,
as if you had not read the post to which you are replying. I have explained
the subsequent story, according to the sources, whereby Basil wnet on with
his own life and later returned the benefactions of Nikolaos and the mother
of Ioannes with interest, and yet you ignore this in favour of an untenable
idea that he had entered some kind of binding same-sex union with each of
these men. There is NO EVIDENCE for this, no matter how many times you harp
on it. There is EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, no matter how many times you
ignore it. Basil lived under the same roof and shared a table with Nikolaos
while he needed help, then he left. He remained a made brother of the man,
and performed (fulfilled, practically acknowledged, undertook, whatever term
you like) the obligations of their adelphopoiesis later on. This was not
ruptured by separation, because they were never united like a married couple
in the first place.
Homodiaiton literally means "a like life" - not "a common life", as they
were not Siamese twins sharing vital organs. In the context of Nikolaos'
charity it indicates the companionship of people sharing the same means of
living, so that "table" or maybe "bread" would be better than "food".
The scenes of Nikolaos having his dream and going out to find Basil are
illustrated in one manuscript - you can find this, along with an edition, in
the Dumbarton Oaks paper I cited before. There is of course no hint of
passionate feelings or physical intimacy between the men.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.39.129636029...@rootsweb.com...
Since you are so keen to demand proofs and sources from others, provide just
one example - any one, from any medieval time or place - where Boswell
cogently demonstrated that a cleric in good standing with the Church
knowingly sanctioned a homosexual union intending this to be a same-sex
marriage.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
Ha. The book is 400 pages long, with at least.. conservatively two hundred
footnotes. It is one long argument to demonstrate this very thing. It
cannot be summarized in an "Example" of that sort you're seeking.
There is no source which states "I so and so priest, do sanction you Bob
and John, in a same-sex marriage"
That's the very point of WHY the book exists Peter. Because it's an
argument to SHOW that this occurred.
If there was a document stating it so clearly, we wouldn't need a book to
explain it.
WJho...@aol.com
WJho...@aol.com writes:
> There is no source which states "I so and so priest, do sanction you Bob
> and John, in a same-sex marriage"
>
Let me rephrase this. We *do* have sources for "I'm a priest" and "I
sanction this" and "Bob and John" (obviously same-sex)
The point of the book is to show that adelpho... I forgot how to spell it,
that that was a same-sex marriage or as close to it as they could get.
So that's the crux. His entire argument cannot be explained, to your
satisfaction, in even a paragraph.
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.41.129636682...@rootsweb.com...
So now you have taken to cutting away your own misstatement quoted in a post
to which you are replying, hoping to cast this in a different light.
YOU WROTE: "he [Boswell] gives many examples, that to my mind, show that the
Church, or at least *these* churchmen presiding, did know what they were
doing, and what it was for".
Each of these "many" individual examples can't be 400 pages long. They can't
all be inextricably bound up with all the rest if there are discrete and
convincing sources for them as represented. Each of them can't be spread
across two hundred (is that all?) footnotes.
I am not asking you to post Boswell's "argument" but just ONE of the "many
examples" that YOU claim to have found in the book.
Your repeated distortion of other people's statements, and of your own,
amounts to outright lying.
This looks like a pattern, along with your habit of inane quibbling and
evasion when put to the test. You are rapidly becoming a second Richardson
in incompetence and dishonesty.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.42.129636724...@rootsweb.com...
In other words Boswell wanted to believe that adelphopoiesis amounted to
homosexual union "closely parallel" to same-sex marriage so much that he
spent 400 pages misrepresenting sources to portray it in this way, and you
have fallen for it.
Never mind that this gives a weirdly distorted picture of Byzantine society
and Orthodox doctrine, never mind that it rewrites the life stories of many
people as fiction to suit the agenda of one. Boswell suffered from Catholic
guilt over his own sexuality, zealously trying to reconcile his wishes with
a false view of history, and now this pile of nonsense clutters the domain.
That is not scholarship.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
I've asked you to stop your ad hominems but you can't seem to, so I'm not
going to continue this thread, no matter what you say next :)
So go for it, take your best shot, but you won't get anything more out of
me on this.
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.43.129637183...@rootsweb.com...
Another thing you clearly don't understand - an "ad hominem" is an attack on
a person and not on a relevant issue, whereas what you are complaining about
is a direct criticism of your posting behaviour in avoiding the issues and
misrepresenting the discussion of these.
You won't post an example because you can't find one that isn't tendentious
or worse.
Yet you won't stop your constant harping on this subject, or I predict your
incessant demands for sources and proofs from others.
The hypocrisy and deceit of a participant are legitimate points to raise in
any controversy. An "ad hominem" would be, for instance, saying that someone
can't be right because he kicks his dog, quite a different matter from my
"attack" on the content of your posts.
It's nothing but a facile excuse for your failure to back up your own
assertions.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
There is no example Peter. You are looking for "an" example, which only
highlights again the ambiguity of English.
I stated that there are many examples with footnotes, which makes me think
he is right.
I.E. Peter, the entirety of the work, as a whole unit. Not as tiny pieces
you can cut and cut and declare each piece false seperately.
I do know what "ad hominem" is, you attack me as "hypocrisy" "deceit"
"liar" and so on.
When I say "what is your source" this is not a *demand* for a source, its a
request for a source.
That nicety is perhaps lost. No one is obligated to grant it, and when
they DONT I dont turn and launching missiles of deceit, hypocrisy and so on at
them.
That is to what I object. This idea that I must provide you with all the
proofs and sources and citations. No there is no must in there.
If you don't accept the situation, you are quite free to do your own
research. But I'm not going to be *cowed* into obeying your dictums simply
because you know how to throw a tantrum. WHEN you can act like a human being,
that might be different :)
Have a nice day you pompous clown :)
You didn't attack the content of my post, you attacked my personality. A
post cannot be a hypocrite but a person can.
And you equated me with Richardson.
Not my post. My person.
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.45.129637451...@rootsweb.com...
More self-serving tripe. This comes from an inexhaustible source, no doubt.
Your behaviour is not the same as your "person". If you post flagrantly
hypocritical garbage you are legitimately called a hypocrite. If your
personality as expressed in a public forum on a contentious subject is
blatantly at fault, participants have a right to point this out. Ask the
group for their opinion if you think I've been unfair to you. The response
may come as a surprise to your self-righteousness.
I asked for an example, with no more menace than you display to others when
you "request" sources from them. You have failed to back up your claim, with
the pathetic excuse that "many examples" are embedded in the whole,
indivisible work. You seem to think that Boswell's book is a tissue of
supernal subtlety, but even holy writ can be selectively quoted from.
If you won't post an example - any example at all will do, as I said - then
we are entitled to assume that you can't substantiate your assertion. Simple
as that. No amount of flailing about, complaining that the big bad man has
attacked your sacred character, will begin to cut it here.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
So you now admit that you were acting "ad hominem". "You are... called...
your personality... at fault...self-righteous... sacred character"
It is all this to which I object. That's why I choose not to continue to
discuss this issue with you.
Peter Stewart
<WJho...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2.129639040...@rootsweb.com...
No, you don't get to twist other people's words and leave lies unanswered in
the archive.
I repeat: "ad hominem" means a tangential line of attack that aim at the
disputant without regard to the issue. When someone makes personal behaviour
part of the issue, by misrepresenting others and by persisting with blatant
nonsense in the face of facts patiently explained, then it is legitimate to
criticise character flaws demonstrated by this.
Your arrogance and conceit have been on display here a long time, hardly
ever backed up by any useful contribution or sharing of research. The number
of times you have actually posted a medieval source or cited one to this
newsgroup over the years could probably be counted in single digits. You are
practically a fare-evading passenger in SGM, and not infrequently - as now -
a disruptive and juvenile nuisance.
Peter Stewart
WJho...@aol.com
pss...@bigpond.com writes:
I never said it wasn't "legitimate". I stated it was ad hominem and now
you've agreed that it was.
"Criticizing character flaws" is ad hominem.
I "twist" and "life" and "misrepresent" and "presist with blatant nonsense"
and I am "arrogent" and "conceited" "disruptive" and "juvenile"
That's why I won't respond to anything more on this issue about Basil and
same sex marriage.
You can thrown tantrums all week long, but I'm not going to engage you
Peter.
M Sjostrom
Peter Stewart's mental imbalance has again burst out. Some days ago.
It looks to me that for the past few months, Peter Stewart's severe mental
problems had been almost satisafactorily in check, presumably by medication.
In the few recent days, the imbalance burst again out, in very severe form.
Medication probably is no longer sufficient, or he has ceased to use his
medication.
A couple of months ago Peter Stewart effectively returned here, after a long
absence of even a year or so. Perhaps he was incarcerated or taken to a
hospital for that sort of longer period.
LGC
Please forgive this lurker for feeding the troll, but . . . .
I believe the message below shows who has a mental imbalance, who needs
medication to help control outbursts or who, perhaps for his own brief
time away from SGM, was incarcerated.
Otherwise, why would reasoned responses to a premise thrown out for
discussion be met with personal insults?
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Wjhonson
Indeed. A situation which applies to the entire thread.
M Sjostrom
>
> I believe the message below shows who has a mental imbalance, who needs
> medication to help control.....
well, obviously Peter Stewart. I am glad that the lurker agrees with the
said assessment, which anyway in essence is affirmed by a couple of
psychologists/psychiatrists of my acquaintance, who -by means of lurking-
followed for a while the behavior of Peter Stewart, at my request.
>
> Otherwise, why would reasoned responses to a premise thrown out for
> discussion be met with personal insults?
>
>
It looks well that the lurker has recognized the excessive personal insults
hurled by Peter Stewart, during the course of the past latest several dozen
messages in this thread.
such a recognition is well and good, because I understand that not everyone
who reads this list, has enough common sense to recognize those personal
insults (abusive behavior) from Peter Stewart.
Kevin Bradford
Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Record Office. Catalog # DG11/986.
Will of Jane (Bond) Coles of Preston, co. Northampton, widow, late wife of Richard Coles of Preston, gent. Dated 19 Elizabeth I (1577 August 22). Proved Canterbury P.C., 14 September 1584. Transcription © 2008 by Kevin Bradford.
In the name of god Amen: The two and twentith day of August in the nynetenth yeare of the raigne of o’r sovraigne Lady Queene Elizabeth And in the yeare of our Lorde god one thousand fyve hundredth seaventy seaven, I Jane Coles of Preston in the county of Northampton widowe late wief of Richard Coles of Preston aforesaid gentleman deseassed Doe now make and ordaine my last will and testament in manner and forme following ffirste I bequeath my soule into the hands of allmightie god my maker and redemer beseching him not to impute to me the multitude of my synnes And my bodye to be buried in the church of Preston aforesaid in suche sorte as shall seeme mete and convenient to my executors. Item I give and bequeath to twentie such poore maidens as shalbe next married in Preston aforesaid after my decease twentie nobles that is to any of them sixe shillings eightpence to be payd to them uppon the daie of thiere marriage. Item I give and bequeath to my sonne in lawe Ambrose the some of Twentie pounds which I lent to him. Item I give to Amy Willes my daughter now wief of the said Ambrose the some of six poundes thirtene shillinges four pence to be paid to her within three monethes next after my decease. Item I give and bequeath the residue of all my goods and cattells (my debts and funalls paid) to my sonnes in lawe Edward Edwardes and William Triste to the intent they shall imploye and bestowe the same as well as the good educacon of such children as they now have or shall have by theire now wives Ursula and Agnes being daughters of me the said Jane as also for the preferment in living hereafter of such children. Item I give and bequeath all my landes tenements and hereditaments wthin the realme of England to my said sonnes in lawe Edward Edwardes and William Trist and to Ursula and Agnes now theire wives and to the heires of the said Ursula Edwardes and Agnes Trist for ever. Item I will that all such legacyes as are due to me by virtue of the last will and testament of my sonne Peter Coles shalbe paid to my executors I will that the moitie of all such debts as are due to me and to my daughter in lawe Elizabeth Coles by force of the last will of my sonne Peter Coles shalbe paid also to my executors And of this my last will and testament I make and ordaine the said Edward Edwardes and William Trist my executors And I ordaine and make overseers of the same my loving friend William Baldwyn of Byfeld in the countie of Northampton gent and my sonne in lawe Ambrose Willes And in recompense of theire paines I give unto ether of them fortie shillings a pece And all former willes I utterly revoke and make frustrate. Item I give to Thomas Bugby one rope and to his wief a peticoate and a smocke And I give to my neighbor William fflanisted one french sword And for any of my servants six shillings eight pence And to any of my godchildren sixtene pence: William Baldwyn William fflanisted Thomas Watkyn. Item I will that my executors shall bestowe at my buriall eight poundes. Item I will and bequeath unto Mary Coles daughter and heire unto Peter Coles the fifteen pounds that Sir Richard knightly doth owe unto me. And also I give her three pounds six shillings eight pence that Mr. ffarmer doath owe unto me And further I give unto the said Mary Coles my best silvr pott and the best silvr salt seller to be delivered by my executors at the day of her marriage or at her age of eighteen years. Item I will and bequeath unto Amye Willes daughter unto Ambrose Willes my sonne in lawe fiftie poundes at the day of her marriage if she die before she be married then to remaine to Richard Willes her brother. Item I will and bequeath unto Richard Willes sonne and heire unto Ambrose Willes twenty pounds. Item I will and bequeath unto Robert Chamberlen my servant one cowe so that he dwell and serve me at my decease. Item I also will and bequeath unto Gillian Burton my maide one cowe if she dwell and serve me at my decease. Item I give and bequeath unto Emma Gefford a cowe if she dwell with me at my decease. Item I will and bequeath unto Geffere of ffarthingston a cowe after my decease. Item I give and bequeath unto Thomas Burtby a cowe after my decease. Item I will and forgive unto Robert Willes of litle Prestun all the debt that he doath owe unto me at my decease. Item I will and forgive unto Peter Hastings of Prestun the one half of the debts that he doath owe unto me at my decease. Item I will and forgive also unto Thomas Graye of the same the one half of the debts that he doath owe unto me. Item I will and forgive also unto William Hogges of the same the one half of the debts he doath owe unto me. Item I will and forgive also unto John Eles of of the same the one half of the debts that he doath owe unto me. Item I will and bequeath unto Richard Coles sonne unto William Coles of Litle Prestun the rest of the debte that Peter Hastings doath owe unto me to be paid the one half within one yeare next after my decease and the other half in the next yeare after that to be paid unto the hands of my brother William Colles to the rest or Richard Coles his sonne yf it happen the said Richard Coles to die then I will yt shall remaine unto Peter Coles his other sonne. Item I will and forgive unto William Wattes of greate Prestun nine shillings six pence that he doath owe unto me. Item I will and forgive unto Richard Hall the one half of the debts he oweth unto me at my decease the wood money which he oweth excepted. Those being witnes whose names followeth Edward Sharp now minister of Preston, Anthony Burtbe John Paine Thomas Burtby with others more.