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