Author |
Message |
Jojo Zerach
|
Posted: Tue 26 Jul, 2011 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jeffrey Faulk wrote: | Craig Peters wrote: | Ushio,
There is almost no evidence for homosexuality in the West. This is not because it did not happen; it probably did. But anyone who did so would have to do homosexual acts very secretively, because the acts were forbidden by the Church. Since we have so very little evidence about homosexuality, it is extremely difficult to know much about it. |
I would have to beg to differ with you about this, at least regarding the late medieval through Renaissance era. There is a good bit of evidence that in Renaissance-era Italy homosexual relationships were quite common; both Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo engaged in them, Michelangelo in particular having a long relationship with a young man.
More or less in the same period, during the Elizabethan period in England, homosexuality was somewhat tacitly acknowledged on occasion. A number of nobles had homosexual lovers, and notably, Christopher Marlowe, the playwright, may very well have been gay. There's rather considerable debate about William Shakespeare, as well.
This was largely squelched by the Reformation and Counter-Reformation movements, both of which frowned heavily upon homosexuality for obvious religious reasons.
As far as the Dark Ages up to the Renaissance, I will acknowledge that there isn't too much evidence; however, note this online reference for historical documents...
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1v.html#C...d%20Gender
That's the 'Internet Medieval Sourcebook', a magnificent resource for researchers as it has quite a number of transcriptions and translations of historical documents. The portion I linked to refers homosexuality specifically. Unfortunately, there's nothing about knights in particular.
My uneducated understanding-- take it with as much salt as you like-- is that, yes, obvious homosexuality would have been stamped out as quickly as the Church and secular law could go for it. However, staying 'in the closet' was probably largely the case for anybody with those inclinations. If they had homosexual affairs, they would have kept them as discreet as possible unless social mores were more relaxed towards those affairs as in Florence during the early part of the Renaissance. Many gay men almost certainly had wives and children regardless of their sexuality-- you don't have to be sexually attracted to women to 'do your duty'. As such, an accurate understanding of how common homosexuality was in this historical era is honestly impossible, and all we really have is speculation based upon what we do know.
Also, don't forget that sodomy was often illegal even with women; Richard's confession of sodomy doesn't necessarily have to be homosexual, although I haven't read of the specific case so I can't say whether it stated that or not. Nevertheless, 'the sin of sodomy', while usually understood to mean homosexual intercourse between men, does frequently include anal intercourse with women by the legal codes of the period. The ideal was that intercourse should result in 'multiplying'; anal intercourse is, of course, counter-productive to that... plus, if a man engaged in same with a woman, might not he be tempted to do same with another man? Not very good logic by our standards, but that's how they frequently thought back in the day... |
Homosexuality was illegal in Renissiance Italy.
Leonardo da Vinci was put on trial for homosexuality in Florence. (and found innocent.)
|
|
|
|
Adam D. Kent-Isaac
|
Posted: Tue 26 Jul, 2011 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jeffrey Faulk wrote: |
More or less in the same period, during the Elizabethan period in England, homosexuality was somewhat tacitly acknowledged on occasion. A number of nobles had homosexual lovers, and notably, Christopher Marlowe, the playwright, may very well have been gay. There's rather considerable debate about William Shakespeare, as well.
|
Shakespeare is wildly speculated about but there is no real evidence, only a lot of theories (and wishful thinking.) But his main patron, Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton, does appear to have been homosexual or at least bisexual. He reportedly had amorous relations with an officer under his command, and there is a painting of him dressed and made-up as a woman.
He was jailed for his involvement in the Essex Plot, under Elizabeth, but released from jail and reinstated at court by King James I upon his accession. You can draw your own conclusions about the reason for this - James himself appears to have preferred men to women and had numerous fairly open affairs with courtiers.
Pastime With Good Company
|
|
|
|
Randall Pleasant
Location: Flower Mound, Texas Joined: 24 Aug 2003
Posts: 333
|
Posted: Tue 26 Jul, 2011 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bjorn Hagstrom wrote: | Homosexuality and Heterosexuality and sexual preference as a concept did not yet exist. Prohibitions and bans where made on "unnatural" activities, rather than the sexual orientation itself. So expressing love towards a fellow man was not in itself something that would necessarily break the social norms, as long as did not break any biblical commandments. |
Well stated. The Catholic Church has always held that having an attraction towards the same sex is not a sin. However, acting upon that attraction is a mortal sin.
Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
|
|
|
|
Nathan Quarantillo
Location: Eastern Panhandle WV, USA Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 279
|
Posted: Tue 26 Jul, 2011 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Basically as to what I was referring to was open fornication. It happened, and I'm sure it always will, but just look how really frowned upon it was just a few generations ago. I'm sure it wasn't a thing that went around getting advertised.
And I believe Unnatural Tendencies would cover sexual intercourse with a man.
And if I remember correctly, Richard had a taste for things "Exotic". Sodomy with Arabian women might be a thing he caught a "Taste" for.
Also I think we are getting ideas that being affectionate towards a man is a red flag for homosexuality. In period it simply wasn't. Men weren't going to stop and point at each other and say "Haha, That's GAY!!!!" like a bunch of teenagers today. There wasn't really the drive to not appear in the least gay. In many European cultures traditional greeting involve kissing or strongly embracing another man. As said, the example of Richard and Philip sharing a bed. Considering Philip's sexual conservativeness (He publicly humiliated his wife Eleanor when he suspected her being in relationships with other men) that would be rather doubtful that sodomy was going on
"Id rather be historically accurate than politically correct"
|
|
|
|
Dustin R. Reagan
|
Posted: Wed 27 Jul, 2011 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nathan Quarantillo wrote: | ...but just look how really frowned upon it was just a few generations ago. |
It is a common fallacy to look at trends in social behavior/mores over relatively recent history (i.e. "a few generations ago") and assume that one can linearly extrapolate this trend back hundreds or thousands of years. Social norms and behaviors can change quickly or slowly, making small, incremental changes, or rapid non-linear leaps.
Nathan Quarantillo wrote: | And if I remember correctly, Richard had a taste for things "Exotic". Sodomy with Arabian women might be a thing he caught a "Taste" for. |
If we are working on supposition, then I could say that it's just as likely that he caught a "Taste" for sodomy with "Exotic" Arabian men. Wouldn't sodomy with Arabian men fall even further on the "Exotic" scale, after all?
Actually, if I recall correctly, his public confessions were before he ever set foot in the Holy Land...
Regarding my previous statement that Richard I was homosexual or bisexual. I did not base that on his wikipedia entry (though I have since gone to read it), I based it on the book Warriors of God, by James Reston Jr. He makes a pretty convincing case (one shared by other historians, apparently). Of course, this is History, so there will be many competing interpretations and viewpoints. I did not explain "He might have been homosexual, but he might also have been heterosexual. Some historians believe one thing and some historians believe another", because I thought it was a given that in History, there are no 100% truths. I'm not a historian myself, so I can't gauge the "weight" of the claims by these competing historians.
Similarly, I don't have any personal or moral bias towards the issue, either (i do have an ingrained cultural bias against a great warrior being homosexual and was quite surprised to read about the evidence that indicates that Richard I was homosexual ). What i do see, though, is evidence that Richard I was homosexual (including contemporary accounts, described in the previously mentioned book). I've just read in this thread a lot of attempts to "explain away" this evidence, instead of being presented with counter-evidence.
|
|
|
|
Nathan Quarantillo
Location: Eastern Panhandle WV, USA Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 279
|
Posted: Wed 27 Jul, 2011 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well ok, we can all agree that medieval society was strongly influenced by the Catholic church. Especially in Richard's era, that of the 3rd crusade which had lots of religious crusading fervor. The Catholic Church has never, even to this day, taken the standpoint of anything but that homosexuality is a grave and mortal sin.
And the in the European culture as we know it (not Greek or Roman or Pagan) society has always strongly frowned upon sex outside of Marriage.
And ok, were his Public confessions to Sodomy with men? I wasn't aware that it was before he went to the Holy Land.
But what in this case then can be counted as counter-evidence? How can we explicitly prove that he wasn't gay, or was?
And really, to the topic at hand, what does it truly matter? If one knight, though he be a king, and a quite prominent one at that, be gay? Even if we did have evidence that he was gay and refused to recant till the end, how does that prove there was a gay knights community?
"Id rather be historically accurate than politically correct"
|
|
|
|
Ushio Kawana
|
Posted: Sun 31 Jul, 2011 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
Thanks lots replies!
Quote: | Since we have so very little evidence about homosexuality, it is extremely difficult to know much about it. |
I think so, too...
I know Giles de Rais... But I think that he is an eccentric rather than a homosexual...
thanks
I'm interested in Medieval Arms and Armor.
But... My English is very poor ><;
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|