Though clearly the Church was against the sin against nature, it was curiously coy in what it deemed constituted this sin. So homosexuality became even more of a whispering charge. While people were left to interpret for themselves what was meant, so often it was implied what was meant, though not explicitly mentioned.
While the sin against nature is unclear so is what constituted sodomy. St. Antonius (1381-1451) clearly states sodomy as “a man with man, a women with a women.” While Saint Bernadine of Sienna writes one assumes inspired by Thomas Aquinas that sodomy was any act of semination committed “wherever”, and “whatever way,” that it made it impossible to generate.
As we can see, homosexuality, in relation to the Church, becomes embroiled with heresy, rumour and fascination. To what extent we are unsure is to what degree the Church’s position is “response to the pressures of public antipathy than to the weight of Christian tradition.” Was the Church simply agreeing with popular opinion or was it initiating opinion? So foul was the notion that the very idea of it becomes too awful to mention? Clearly though it is seen as “subsidiary category for no reproductive sex”. So while there is a constant undercurrent and bad feeling against sodomy what people are meant to do about it or avoid it remains “unspeakable”.
However, while the philosophical shift against homosexuality is undeniable, the greater repression by the church “can be explained in part by the greater ability of the church and state to carry it out.” The Church in fact became better equipped in its ability to impose its will. The physical make up of the Church’s opposition to homosexuality is hard to pinpoint. It is intertwined with the growth of popular thinking, its contradiction to procreation and its actual ability to enforce its will. David Greenberg argues very effectively that the “fear and loathing of homosexuality” that developed in the Church as a “psychological defence mechanism” to combat “the imposition of clerical celibacy and the rigid repression of all sexual expression.” Clearly this contributed to the pursuit of those practising homosexuality. It must also be said that public opinion must have begun shifting against the clergy and being accused of sodomy.
Contemporary writers also offered their own interpretation of sodomy, again equally diverse and different. Chaucer in his Parsons Tale defined sodomy as having intercourse in such a way that “child may not be conceived.” Through the twelfth centuries in line with the Church attitudes hardened Alain of Lille’s work The Complaint of Nature condemns homosexuality along with other sexual vices on moral and philosophical grounds, without religious argument. The literature of the period began to establish a tangible link between Islam and religious non-conformity. This notion was strengthened by the crusades, which brought a flood of anti-Islamic propaganda, including accusations of homosexuality and heterosexual rape. Clearly the idea that homosexuality was something to be feared like the wild men in the east resonates itself in literature of the time.
Literature of the time however was in a juxtaposition of wanting to inform but not to encourage sinning. So while the language may be very rhetorical it does not give us cause to assume that they were dealing with a wide and large spread issue. Merely, could it of been pandering to those in society who indulged reading moral rants.
Corresponding with clerical attitudes secular law divides in two, between relative disregard and religious fervour. Michael Goodich reasons that homosexuality “was not sufficiently widespread” or was not regarded as “an especially moral crime”. And due to this there seems a relative lack of moral objection.
Looking also toward secular legislation, there is a rich vein of primary material, which shows us very clearly how different countries reacted to sodomy.
In France strict measures began to be introduced to combat sodomy, a sliding scale was introduced for first, second and third time offenders, indeed many took the laws to mean death, though this was not the laws original intent. The hardening attitude of legislators in France was mirrored elsewhere. In Castile the punishment for sodomy was to be stoned to death. In self governing towns across Europe in Perugia, Rhine Valley and Northern Italy, fines, expulsions and executions became commonplace. However it is true to say that these events weren’t replicated throughout Europe, England “failed to adopt secular legislation”.
What is debateable however is that in writing the history of homosexuality laws preventing it do not prove its existence. What we cannot be sure of is whether these laws were designed to ensure that people felt that they were doing something about it, rather than actually dealing with any actual problem. By outlawing something they were in fact ensuring they felt better about the world in which they lived. In fact ensuring the largest punishment possible for sodomy those that weren’t committing it could feel even better about not having committed it.
Intertwined with the growth of repressive legislation is that of class attitudes. “In the late twelfth century, a movement to reduce clerical privilege and diminish the role of old aristocracy gathered force.” As a more mobile middle class grew compiled of the noveaux riche bankers, merchants and manufactures. They sought to expunge the clergy and old nobility of the “sexual nonconformity” they were so often accused of. In economically advanced areas of Europe the old aristocracy was being expelled from the cities while having it privileges reduced.
Again we are in a position where we know that these events happened, but there impact on the study of homosexuality is difficult. While action against those often associated with homosexuality dose not prove its existence it does again give us information regarding popular opinion and prejudices. The reaction against those, who were, considered engaged in this nonconformity, is vital, if only, to gauge public rather than institutional reaction.
Boswell crystallises for me the real problem that we are faced with when looking at homosexuality in the Middle Ages. “Gay people were rarely visible.” As historians we have to look even harder to uncover the history of homosexuality. This is another hurdle of trying to tell the story of a minority who for there own protection remain unheard.
If we are to look to history for evidence of men who were actually homosexual, evidence is thin. Modern historians however have looked to the passage of chronicler Rodger of Howden and his interpretation of Richards and Philips of Frances relationship. Stating the “passionate love between them”. However D.M Hadley rises to this declaring it “tells us nothing of real feelings” that the “description of Philips and Richards love is no more erotic than that of many literary characters.” However we again turn to Boswell to convince us “as a young man Richard had fallen in love with the King of France.”
Boswell remains the most convincing us that indeed there was a gay subculture in the Middle Ages. “Gay people were prominent, influential and respected at many levels of society at many levels of society.” His history though has been attacked by other academics however as attempting to create homosexuality in history. Carolyn Dinshaw argues, “Boswell’s actual historical work was constrained by an essentialism and a relatively narrow conceptualisation of gay relationships.” Within the study of gender there is much discussion about the ability to be objective when discussing homosexuality from our ‘enlightened’ standpoint. Dinshaw again criticises Boswell for likening past gay relationships to “urban gay males in the United States.”
Seemingly, in answering our question, I have reached some clear conclusions. The question of the unmentionable nature of homosexuality in the Middle Ages, is to say the least, contentious.
Essentially though, the primary evidence we have relating to literature, the Church, philosophy, law and historical figures shows us two things. It points clearly to the treatment of homosexuals as being divided across the Middle Ages. Essentially, this is between general acceptance, with an undercurrent of dislike, to a big shift in public opinion and the induction of repressive laws and mob attacks. Obviously though in such a diverse period to chop an era of massive change in two presents its own difficulties. Of this primary evidence there is also contentions to the nature and intent of the source, and how this influences our opinions.
Much has been made of the advances in recent studies of uncovering homosexual history. However while we have plenty of literature relating to this it can be said that its intent and direction are heavily weighted by predetermined conclusions. Whenever, then were read this material we are constantly aware of taking the judgements made as necessarily uncorrupted.
It has not escaped the writer’s notice either, that there has been very little mention of any listing of female homosexual behaviour. We only have to look though to the primary evidence to see that men for men wrote it. While there are examples it would have been foolhardy to delve explicitly in lesbianism in the Middle Ages. It goes without saying of course that it was ‘unmentionable’ even more than male homosexuality.
In drawing in the threads of this essay some things are very apparent. There is certainly information available to us to access homosexuality, however we are left with a lot of guesswork. While being ‘unmentionable’ we are provided with more than enough to deal with its history. Certainly the existence of homosexuality to some degree is not in doubt however when we write of homosexuality our idea of ‘being gay’ is simply not applicable in this time. What we really are asking is were there homosexual acts in the middle ages rather than were there homosexuals. We are able to write its history not simply because we have evidence, we also want to write its history there are so many studies by so many authors which attempt to provide a new insight means that there has to be enough to interpret. I think that that is the buzzword of this essay ‘interpretation’ because while we do have the information what we do with it and how we interpret it are as this essay has shown one of great debate.
In writing this essay it has become very apparent to me that in the field of gender studies there is a need to find sex. This is where although we have shown it is there, possibly there is a danger of over emphasising it. I began this essay by echoing John Boswell, I feel I must end it, by finding solace in D.M Hadley writing; “In such matters we must be careful not to project on to a less erotically preoccupied society the artificially stimulated and commercially exploited eroticism of our own sex-ridden age.”
If one point reverberates constantly, in this essay, as well as this writer’s thinking is that the study of, and interpretation, of homosexuality in the Middle Ages is to feed, firstly; our need for scandal and intrigue of illicit love, which is seemingly insatiable. Secondly, to fulfil an intense desire to ensure that no one in our society is marginalized. Thirdly, and in my opinion most importantly, while those in the Middle Ages sought to console themselves by ensuring minority groups were completely marginalized, we feel we are better people by trying to give a lot of history to everyone, when maybe, it’s not there.
Bibliography
John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, (1980)
Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds., Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, (1996)
Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds., Sexual Practices and the Medieval Church, (1982)
Glenn Burger and Steven F. Kruger, eds., Queering the Middle Ages, (2001)
Carolyn Dinshaw, Getting Medieval: Sexuality and Communities, Pre and Post-Modern, (1999)
Michael Goodich, The Unmentionable Vice: Homosexuality in the Later Medieval Period, (1979)
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, (1988)
D.M. Hadley, ed., Masculinity in Medieval Europe, (1999)
If sodomy/homosexuality was ‘unmentionable’ in the Middle Ages, how can we write its history?
John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the Fourteenth Century (1980) p334.
Michael Goodich, The Unmentionable Vice: Homosexuality in the Later Medieval Period (1979), p ix.
Michael Goodich, The Unmentionable Vice: Homosexuality in the Later Medieval Period (1979), p xv.
Michael Goodich, The Unmentionable Vice: Homosexuality in the Later Medieval Period (1979), p 7
Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds, Sexual Practices in the Medieval Church (1982), p 63
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, (1988), p264
Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds, Sexual Practices in the Medieval Church (1982), p 63
Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds, Sexual Practices in the Medieval Church, (1982), p 66
Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds, Sexual Practices in the Medieval Church, (1982), p 66
John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the Fourteenth Century (1980) p329
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, (1988), p265
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, (1988), p279
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, (1988), p289
Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, eds, Sexual Practices in the Medieval Church (1982), p 66
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, (1988), p268
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, (1988), p268
Michael Goodich, The Unmentionable Vice: Homosexuality in the Later Medieval Period, (1979), p75
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, (1988) p272
David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality, (1988) p273
Michael Goodich, The Unmentionable Vice: Homosexuality in the Later Medieval Period, (1979), p87
Michael Goodich, The Unmentionable Vice: Homosexuality in the Later Medieval Period, (1979), p87
John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, (1980), p333
D.M. Hadley, ed., Masculinity in Medieval Europe, (1999), p237
D.M. Hadley, ed., Masculinity in Medieval Europe, (1999), p223
John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century, (1980), p334
Carolyn Dinshaw, Getting Medieval: Sexuality and Communities, Pre and Post-Modern, (1999), p31
Carolyn Dinshaw, Getting Medieval: Sexuality and Communities, Pre and Post-Modern, (1999), p30
D.M. Hadley, ed., Masculinity in Medieval Europe, (1999), p237