What do you think?
Rate this book
Marriage of Likeness Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe
Shipped from UK, please allow 10 to 21 business days for arrival. The marriage of same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe. xxx, 412 p., [8] p. of plates : ill., facsims., ports. ; 20 cm.. . Reprint with amendments of the ed. originally New York : Villard Books, 1994 ; HarperCollins, 1995. Includes translations of Catholic and Orthodox liturgies for same-sex unions. Port on inside front cover. Includes bibliographical references and index.. . Creased spine,Some edge wear , heavier on the top and tail of the spine. Top right of soft cover and back bottom left is creased.Binding tight and square, contents clean and unmarked.
412 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
89 people are currently reading
3189 people want to read
About the author
John Boswell
67 books58 followersJohn Eastburn Boswell was a prominent historian and a professor at Yale University. Many of Boswell's studies focused on the issue of homosexuality and religion, specifically homosexuality and Christianity. Boswell graduated from the College of William & Mary and earned his phd at Harvard. He died in 1994, age 47.
Librarian note: There is more than one author by this name in the database. See authors with similar names.
Librarian note: There is more than one author by this name in the database. See authors with similar names.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews
November 19, 2020
when boswell said that only female and gay historians never tried to portray same-sex unions as anything but what they clearly must have been, i felt that
anyway, this is very readable, super well-researched & boswell always gives his reasons for translating words or for interpreting facts a specific way. also he makes it clear that gay couples weren't actually demonised in europe until like xiv century, so
anyway, this is very readable, super well-researched & boswell always gives his reasons for translating words or for interpreting facts a specific way. also he makes it clear that gay couples weren't actually demonised in europe until like xiv century, so
November 30, 2008
This book blew my mind. As a historian of Roman religion, early Christianity and the Medieval Church, I never dreamed that the documents he's uncovered would actually exist out there. He's unearthed actual Christian liturgy for same-sex unions, prayers and blessings that couldn't be clearer about giving sanction to the spiritual bond between two people of the same sex the same way the Church does for opposite sex couples. As logical evidence in the current debate, this feels like "game, set, match" when you read it.
August 9, 2011
This huge work of scholarship brings to light pre-modern documents concerning heterosexual marriages and same-sex unions. Don't be fooled by the title! Our modern sense of the phrase "same-sex unions" sometimes gets interpreted as "same-sex marriages," which really isn't the case with this book.
Sure, there may have been same-sex unions that entailed more than strong friendship or spiritual unity, but reading this book made me realize how diluted our sense of friendship - and how uneducated our knowledge of marriage - can be.
This book covers ancient attitudes on men and women, as well as the history of marriages and ceremonies, from the pre-Christian era through to modern times and would be of great interest to heterosexuals wanting to know more about the strange history of wives, concubines, prostitutes, slaves, and everything in between. This work includes how attitudes have differed between ancient civilizations concerning love, marriage, and the distinctions (and sometimes non-distinctions) between hetero- and homosexual love and unions.
As with all of Boswell's work, there is a tremendous amount of footnotes - well worth reading - and many different languages are brought into the entire discussion (as well as thoughts on proper translations), all incredibly fascinating. In the back, there are pre-modern Christian ceremonies for both heterosexual marriages and same-sex unions that have been translated and could actually be used for anyone interested. This is another piece of Boswell's work that leaves you with an incredible depth of knowledge and appreciation. Highly recommended.
Sure, there may have been same-sex unions that entailed more than strong friendship or spiritual unity, but reading this book made me realize how diluted our sense of friendship - and how uneducated our knowledge of marriage - can be.
This book covers ancient attitudes on men and women, as well as the history of marriages and ceremonies, from the pre-Christian era through to modern times and would be of great interest to heterosexuals wanting to know more about the strange history of wives, concubines, prostitutes, slaves, and everything in between. This work includes how attitudes have differed between ancient civilizations concerning love, marriage, and the distinctions (and sometimes non-distinctions) between hetero- and homosexual love and unions.
As with all of Boswell's work, there is a tremendous amount of footnotes - well worth reading - and many different languages are brought into the entire discussion (as well as thoughts on proper translations), all incredibly fascinating. In the back, there are pre-modern Christian ceremonies for both heterosexual marriages and same-sex unions that have been translated and could actually be used for anyone interested. This is another piece of Boswell's work that leaves you with an incredible depth of knowledge and appreciation. Highly recommended.
July 11, 2020
Having previously published three other books on the subject of same-sex unions in medieval Europe, this book was John Boswell’s fourth and last, published in 1994, the same year of his untimely death of AIDS. In these books, he makes the cumulative argument that, counter to many modern ideas about the reception of homosexuality in the Catholic Church, that as late as the twelfth century, clergy showed no particular concern or disdain toward the subject, and even openly celebrated same-sex unions. In many ways, this book is a culmination of Boswell’s academic work on the subject that he began nearly fifteen years earlier with his “Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century,” first published in 1980.
Boswell opens the book claiming that this kind of research is made particularly difficult for philological and cultural reasons. For example, similar words were often deployed for very different reasons. (The Greek words agape, storge, filia, and eros all speak to distinctly different kinds of love, but their usages are often idiomatic and overlap.) To complicate matters even further, what “marriage” entailed varied widely from one geographic location to another, even in Europe alone. This is one of the reasons why Boswell eschews the term “gay marriage” (thinking it’s too politically charged) and opts for “brother-making” or “brotherhood-making” (in Greek, “adelphopoesis”). Though he finally settles on this word, it’s important to realize that the meaning of “brother” was also far from static. Recall that the Bible claims that all Christians are “brothers with one Father,” but that term was also used in medieval economic and juridical contexts, to the highly idiosyncratic ways in which we use the word today in contemporary English.
He then drives home that the historical motivations for marriage highly diverge from the ones that we all but assume today. In Europe, it was common to marry for dynastic and economic reasons and to keep a separate female companion for the release of the “baser pleasures.” As Boswell says, “Nothing in the ancient world quite corresponds to the idea of a permanent, exclusive union of social equals, freely chosen by them to fulfill both their emotional needs and imposing equal obligations of fidelity on both partners.”
The appearance and popularization of Christianity in the late classical and early medieval period didn’t do as much to change sexual ethics as is usually claimed. Most of these changes occurred before Christianity did; if anything, Christianity devalued marriage by emphasizing its role as a worldly – and therefore inferior – relationship. The sacralization of marriage didn’t occur until the heightened emphasis on Ephesians 5:22 (wherein Jesus is compared to the Church in exactly the same way a man is the seen as the figurehead of a marriage). Because influential commentators from Augustine to Isidore of Seville suggested that chaste marriages are preferable to unchaste ones, the Christian standard quickly become the “spiritual marriage” which focused on a unity of souls rather than physical, earthly traits. This combined with the fraternalization of the Christian community (repeated references to other Christians as fellow “brothers” or “sisters”) leads to some highly interesting readings in which sister/wife or brother/husband are almost synonymous, as seen in the Book of Tobit and the Canticum Canticorum.
Boswell goes on to document what these ceremonies actually consisted of: the joining of hands, the crowning of heads (super gay), the taking of Communion, and readings from Scripture, all of which we know to be central parts of many medieval heterosexual marriage ceremonies. Was this in fact something more profound or meaningful than the formation of a “spiritual brotherhood”? If it was, do we have any reason to think that other people in society looked upon these kinds of marriages as anything like normative heterosexual marriage? These are more interpretive questions and therefore almost necessarily must have less conclusive answers, but Boswell certainly wants to encourage the reader to believe that they were.
Even if Boswell’s project turns out to be little more than fevered wishful thinking (his is the only scholarship I’ve read this subject), what he’s added to the field has encouraged historians to re-think narrow, presentist assumptions about religion and larger cultural questions. The evidence that the book puts forward may or may not fully supported the claims that it makes, but it opens interpretive doors that make it much easier to imagine just how fluid and organic the past, present, and future really are. If this book is any sole indication, Boswell almost certainly did not fully make his case, but he may well have achieved something much more important in choosing to investigate what was thought to be long-settled social and cultural history. And that, for any serious historian, should be considered a moral imperative.
Boswell opens the book claiming that this kind of research is made particularly difficult for philological and cultural reasons. For example, similar words were often deployed for very different reasons. (The Greek words agape, storge, filia, and eros all speak to distinctly different kinds of love, but their usages are often idiomatic and overlap.) To complicate matters even further, what “marriage” entailed varied widely from one geographic location to another, even in Europe alone. This is one of the reasons why Boswell eschews the term “gay marriage” (thinking it’s too politically charged) and opts for “brother-making” or “brotherhood-making” (in Greek, “adelphopoesis”). Though he finally settles on this word, it’s important to realize that the meaning of “brother” was also far from static. Recall that the Bible claims that all Christians are “brothers with one Father,” but that term was also used in medieval economic and juridical contexts, to the highly idiosyncratic ways in which we use the word today in contemporary English.
He then drives home that the historical motivations for marriage highly diverge from the ones that we all but assume today. In Europe, it was common to marry for dynastic and economic reasons and to keep a separate female companion for the release of the “baser pleasures.” As Boswell says, “Nothing in the ancient world quite corresponds to the idea of a permanent, exclusive union of social equals, freely chosen by them to fulfill both their emotional needs and imposing equal obligations of fidelity on both partners.”
The appearance and popularization of Christianity in the late classical and early medieval period didn’t do as much to change sexual ethics as is usually claimed. Most of these changes occurred before Christianity did; if anything, Christianity devalued marriage by emphasizing its role as a worldly – and therefore inferior – relationship. The sacralization of marriage didn’t occur until the heightened emphasis on Ephesians 5:22 (wherein Jesus is compared to the Church in exactly the same way a man is the seen as the figurehead of a marriage). Because influential commentators from Augustine to Isidore of Seville suggested that chaste marriages are preferable to unchaste ones, the Christian standard quickly become the “spiritual marriage” which focused on a unity of souls rather than physical, earthly traits. This combined with the fraternalization of the Christian community (repeated references to other Christians as fellow “brothers” or “sisters”) leads to some highly interesting readings in which sister/wife or brother/husband are almost synonymous, as seen in the Book of Tobit and the Canticum Canticorum.
Boswell goes on to document what these ceremonies actually consisted of: the joining of hands, the crowning of heads (super gay), the taking of Communion, and readings from Scripture, all of which we know to be central parts of many medieval heterosexual marriage ceremonies. Was this in fact something more profound or meaningful than the formation of a “spiritual brotherhood”? If it was, do we have any reason to think that other people in society looked upon these kinds of marriages as anything like normative heterosexual marriage? These are more interpretive questions and therefore almost necessarily must have less conclusive answers, but Boswell certainly wants to encourage the reader to believe that they were.
Even if Boswell’s project turns out to be little more than fevered wishful thinking (his is the only scholarship I’ve read this subject), what he’s added to the field has encouraged historians to re-think narrow, presentist assumptions about religion and larger cultural questions. The evidence that the book puts forward may or may not fully supported the claims that it makes, but it opens interpretive doors that make it much easier to imagine just how fluid and organic the past, present, and future really are. If this book is any sole indication, Boswell almost certainly did not fully make his case, but he may well have achieved something much more important in choosing to investigate what was thought to be long-settled social and cultural history. And that, for any serious historian, should be considered a moral imperative.
April 28, 2025
Because desire and intimacy are not naturally circumscribed…one of the benefits of reading history is that it reminds us of the expansiveness and creativity of human beings and human societies.
I told Mark Elliott that I had randomly seen Boswell’s book in a used bookstore in Taipei. He shamed me for not buying it and spoke so reverently about Boswell that I went back and bought the book. At one point, I tried to explain it to my conservative roommate, but I think he got hung up on the idea of the Sacred Band of Thebes, and we never moved on past that.
(James: But am I allowed to call my friend gay if he eats a banana in a weird way?
Me: I honestly don’t know how to respond to that.)
I told Mark Elliott that I had randomly seen Boswell’s book in a used bookstore in Taipei. He shamed me for not buying it and spoke so reverently about Boswell that I went back and bought the book. At one point, I tried to explain it to my conservative roommate, but I think he got hung up on the idea of the Sacred Band of Thebes, and we never moved on past that.
(James: But am I allowed to call my friend gay if he eats a banana in a weird way?
Me: I honestly don’t know how to respond to that.)
August 6, 2015
This book is a short tome for those used to reading academic texts that regularly delve into the original Greek, Hebrew, or other source languages. For me, someone who is not used to being steeped in the arcana of ancient text research, this was a tough read. That said, I enjoyed what I got out of it. And the writer was a preeminent scholar at a renowned institution, so he was well within his scholarly milieu in composing this text in the 90s. The biggest revelation here was that not only did same sex unions happen, THERE WERE CHURCH CEREMONIES FOR THEM. The author sources them in various places and times, and traces their changes and inclusion and exclusion from various church tomes. The history of opposite sex relationships, is far more varied and contains many more dimensions than current concepts of "what has always been" allow.
The book includes addenda that provide translations of many ancient religious ceremonies, some for unions of same sex couples that function just as marriages did at that time. It gets dense, but the point is that same sex relationships have existed since ancient days. A side point is that marriage has not always been based on love and for procreation - conveying land, title and privilege among the monied classes was paramount at various points. Also, statuses other than marriage, including taking a concubine, were seen as the way to pursue a love interest or to satisfy one's sexual urges (not marriage, that was a business relationship). Diversity is the word I keep coming back to: people organized themselves in a surprising diverse array of relationships. Also, class plays a huge role in this - slaves weren't allowed to participate in some ways; the poor in others.
The epilogue is by far the most accessible part of the book. The author provides a "concluding observation":
This gets me. We have not been reflecting accurately on the same sex relationships of our past. We do our present and our future a disservice.
And to that I say, Amen.
Professor Boswell left us all too soon, as he died from complications from AIDS in 1994. It's a damn shame, as I cannot imagine what he would have brought to the scholarship and popular discussion in the 21 years that have passed. Read his obituary in the NY Times here.
The book includes addenda that provide translations of many ancient religious ceremonies, some for unions of same sex couples that function just as marriages did at that time. It gets dense, but the point is that same sex relationships have existed since ancient days. A side point is that marriage has not always been based on love and for procreation - conveying land, title and privilege among the monied classes was paramount at various points. Also, statuses other than marriage, including taking a concubine, were seen as the way to pursue a love interest or to satisfy one's sexual urges (not marriage, that was a business relationship). Diversity is the word I keep coming back to: people organized themselves in a surprising diverse array of relationships. Also, class plays a huge role in this - slaves weren't allowed to participate in some ways; the poor in others.
The epilogue is by far the most accessible part of the book. The author provides a "concluding observation":
...that whatever significance the [same sex marriage ceremony] might (or might not) have for persons living at this juncture of history, its greatest importance lies, along with all other forms of same-sex union known in premodern Europe, in its role in European history. It is not the province of the historian to direct the actions of future human beings, but only to reflect accurately on those of the past.
This gets me. We have not been reflecting accurately on the same sex relationships of our past. We do our present and our future a disservice.
"Humanity does not pass through phases as a train passes through stations: being alive, it has the privilege of always moving yet never leaving anything behind. Whatever we have been, in some sort we are still," observed C.S. Lewis in a related context. Recognizing that many--probably most--earlier Western societies institutionalized some form of romantic same-sex union gives us a much more accurate view of the immense variety of human romantic relationships and social responses to them than does the prudish pretense that such "unmentionable" things never happened.
And to that I say, Amen.
Professor Boswell left us all too soon, as he died from complications from AIDS in 1994. It's a damn shame, as I cannot imagine what he would have brought to the scholarship and popular discussion in the 21 years that have passed. Read his obituary in the NY Times here.
May 24, 2021
I have not read a book by John Boswell since I was a Yale student and he was my roommate's thesis advisor--at that time, his book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian Era to the 14th C had just won the National Book Award and we all read it. This book was Boswell's last--he died of AIDS in his mid-40s soon after completing this book--a huge loss to the world of ancient and medieval scholarship. This book is scholarly yet highly readable; Boswell has hunted down ancient documents about heterosexual marriages and same-sex unions, using translations, word choices, history, theology, and ancient writing to show that ceremonies in medieval and pre medieval Europe recongized same sex relationships. Boswell does not introduce that topic until the last chapter, but builds up with a history of male/female relationship, marriages and other ceremonies, from the pre-Christian era in Greece, Rome and Palestine--wives, concubines, prostitutes, contracts for marriage, doweries, love, friendship, ceremonies--he covers it all in detailed, heavily footnoted (also worth reading) manner, with word translations and distinctions often driving the discussion on how we view rites and procedures we thought were familiar. This is an incredible book made all the more tragic knowing tht the author died before it was completed--and left one wondering what else he might have written had he been given more time.
December 10, 2014
Long story short, traditional Roman Catholic practice clearly included same-sex unions of some sort. The evidence seems massive and unmistakable. The author documents the origins of same sex marriage customs, their variety, and the beginnings of a process of repression which seems to date to the fourteenth century. The past may not be as we imagine it.
Reading around a bit you can discover that some reviewers question whether these same sex unions included, you know, sex. Some view Boswell skeptically. But the simple fact that formal religious recognition of unions between people of the same sex existed already paints a different past than we are accustomed to think of. The details of what two brothers (or sisters?) did in private are perhaps of secondary importance to the fact that their relationship was legitimized in law and before God.
This book is also very interesting for the light that it sheds on marriage customs in general, homosexual and heterosexual. It gives you ample opportunity to meditate on what marriage seems to have meant across a vast swathe of time.
What I take away is the western Church's distance from marriage. It appears that various configurations could, prior to the 14th century, present themselves as they were - friends, partners, brothers, sisters, allies in the world. These relationships were unremarkable in the larger world, and thus blessable by the church. The church was anti-sexual in general, but in a way that applied as much to heterosexual as same sex couples, and what couples did in that realm was of little interest. The church did not approve, but because the matter was sex, it was in a sense beyond its purview. Taking that approach it seems that it had little trouble blessing the relationships that were presented to it, and urging chastity (which might mean faithfulness to each other, and might mean refraining from sex within the relationship too), but also not concerning itself too much with the questions of sex.
Boswell concludes: "... whatever significance the ceremony might(or might not) have for persons living at this [the present] juncture of history, its greatest importance lies, along with all other forms of same-sex union known in pre-modern Europe, in its role in European history. It is not the province of the historian to direct the actions of future human beings, but only to reflect accurately on those of the past. "Humanity does not pass through phases as a train passes through stations: being alive, it has the privilege of always moving yet never leaving anything behind. Whatever we have been, in some sort we are still, " observed C. S. Lewis in a related context. Recognizing that many - probably most - early Western societies institutionalized some form of romantic same-sex union gives us a much more accurate view of the immense variety of human romantic relationships and social responses to them than does the prudish pretense that such "unmentionable" things never happened."
Reading around a bit you can discover that some reviewers question whether these same sex unions included, you know, sex. Some view Boswell skeptically. But the simple fact that formal religious recognition of unions between people of the same sex existed already paints a different past than we are accustomed to think of. The details of what two brothers (or sisters?) did in private are perhaps of secondary importance to the fact that their relationship was legitimized in law and before God.
This book is also very interesting for the light that it sheds on marriage customs in general, homosexual and heterosexual. It gives you ample opportunity to meditate on what marriage seems to have meant across a vast swathe of time.
What I take away is the western Church's distance from marriage. It appears that various configurations could, prior to the 14th century, present themselves as they were - friends, partners, brothers, sisters, allies in the world. These relationships were unremarkable in the larger world, and thus blessable by the church. The church was anti-sexual in general, but in a way that applied as much to heterosexual as same sex couples, and what couples did in that realm was of little interest. The church did not approve, but because the matter was sex, it was in a sense beyond its purview. Taking that approach it seems that it had little trouble blessing the relationships that were presented to it, and urging chastity (which might mean faithfulness to each other, and might mean refraining from sex within the relationship too), but also not concerning itself too much with the questions of sex.
Boswell concludes: "... whatever significance the ceremony might(or might not) have for persons living at this [the present] juncture of history, its greatest importance lies, along with all other forms of same-sex union known in pre-modern Europe, in its role in European history. It is not the province of the historian to direct the actions of future human beings, but only to reflect accurately on those of the past. "Humanity does not pass through phases as a train passes through stations: being alive, it has the privilege of always moving yet never leaving anything behind. Whatever we have been, in some sort we are still, " observed C. S. Lewis in a related context. Recognizing that many - probably most - early Western societies institutionalized some form of romantic same-sex union gives us a much more accurate view of the immense variety of human romantic relationships and social responses to them than does the prudish pretense that such "unmentionable" things never happened."
February 18, 2009
Before reading this book, I was under the impression that there was no history of same sex unions in premodern europe. It turns out that, in fact, there was enough to fill a very large book with things you'll never learn about in school. Most notable is the discussion of early Christianity and it's view of marriage vs. the marriage beliefs of judaism at the time. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is not already a scholar of the subject.
April 22, 2011
Fascinating. Marriage is not even close to what you probably thought it was. Especially not Christian concepts of marriage. Those squawking about gay marriage not being traditional (and heck, those on the other side of the debate) should take a gander at this work. Super academic, but accessible and interesting as well.
July 4, 2016
An incredible work of scholarship that is well researched and cited. This should be on the reading list for anyone who intends to dive into the discussion of the history of Christian marriage, or the same-sex marriage debate.
May 31, 2015
Impeccably researched. Very academic but provides great historical insight for same gender marriage
April 15, 2025
I was thoroughly bored reading this book, to the point that toward the end I was just skimming for key points.
It reads as though the author was trying to write an academic journal and not a non-fiction book. The epilogue ends 50% into the book and the entire back half is appendices and indices. The second half of every chapter is footnotes.
It feels like the author was not writing for the general public, but for researchers. This work would have been a better fit in a database like JSTOR for a sociology or history student to cite during a research essay. This isn't the type of work that a casual reader sits down to read to add to their general knowledge.
I've had this book sitting in my TBR for about four years now, I originally purchased it for the "Read an LGBTQ+ history book" task for Book Riot's 2021 challenge, but sidelined it for something else (David Bowie Made Me Gay: 100 Years of LGBT Music by Darryl W. Bullock for the record), and I'm glad I read that book then and this book now, because I would have DNFed it then. At least now, it doesn't have to haunt me from my TBR.
And I have no intention on reading anything else this author has written, unless I randomly decide to go back to school and need a reference for a research paper.
It reads as though the author was trying to write an academic journal and not a non-fiction book. The epilogue ends 50% into the book and the entire back half is appendices and indices. The second half of every chapter is footnotes.
It feels like the author was not writing for the general public, but for researchers. This work would have been a better fit in a database like JSTOR for a sociology or history student to cite during a research essay. This isn't the type of work that a casual reader sits down to read to add to their general knowledge.
I've had this book sitting in my TBR for about four years now, I originally purchased it for the "Read an LGBTQ+ history book" task for Book Riot's 2021 challenge, but sidelined it for something else (David Bowie Made Me Gay: 100 Years of LGBT Music by Darryl W. Bullock for the record), and I'm glad I read that book then and this book now, because I would have DNFed it then. At least now, it doesn't have to haunt me from my TBR.
And I have no intention on reading anything else this author has written, unless I randomly decide to go back to school and need a reference for a research paper.
January 30, 2018
I both appreciated and was annoyed by how academic the book was. Boswell made the case that the facts he presented were accurate, but by being so meticulous and detail focused he made a book that was difficult to become immersed in.
July 3, 2024
THE HISTORIAN’S FINAL BOOK, SUGGESTING SUCH UNIONS WERE LIKE ‘MARRIAGE’
John Eastburn Boswell (1947-1994; he died from AIDS-related complications) was a historian and professor at Yale University.
He wrote in the Preface of this 1994 book of how he “discovered many versions of the ceremony that were obviously the same-sex equivalent of a medieval heterosexual marriage ceremony… I wonder if the Paris versions represent simplified (or even bowdlerized) medieval versions of the ceremony of union. In any event, I publish them here for that readers can judge for themselves. Over the years, I have often spoke publicly about the ceremony and its ramifications. I now doubt that this was a wise decision… because over the decade I have been assembling the material, my opinions on various aspects of it have evolved and changed, as is inevitably the case in any long scholarly project. Many people may have been misled in minor ways by what I said at earlier stages of my research, since these informal presentations on work in progress were widely disseminated and quoted.” (Pg. x)
He explains in the Introduction, “The question that will immediately leap to the mind of a resident of the modern West about the same-sex liturgical unions described in the following chapters… is ‘were they homosexual?’ … [The] morally paramount distinction suggested by this question… was largely unknown to the societies in which the unions first took place, making the question anachronistic and to some extent unanswerable… and even where the difference was noticed and commented on, it was much less important to premodern Europeans than many other moral and practical distinctions regarding human couplings. It was adultery that troubled most medieval Christians… not gender of the party with whom it was committed.” (Pg. xxv)
He notes, “It is difficult to account for the fact that although many, many sources indicate that women also formed permanent same-sex unions, all of the surviving ceremonies invoke male archetypes. This is probably a subset of the general domination of women by men in Western society, as evidenced in the fact that in most Christian communions the father still ‘gives the bride away,’ although notions of women as the property of fathers or husbands have log since disappeared… it is entirely possible that women were content to devise their own forms and promises, as they might to today.” (Pg. xxviii)
He points out, “The idea that Greek-speakers of the ancient world… made nice distinctions among the several Greek words that express ‘love’---a notion widely popularized among the English-speaking public by C.S. Lewis---is a misprision. In fact, the three most common Greek expressions for ‘love’… were largely interchangeable, although each carried with it a slightly different congeries of association. [Eros] was associated chiefly with passionate love… [Philia] was the general term for friendship, usually considered (than and now) distinguishable from ‘eros,’ but the related verb… was the single most common word for ‘love’ in every sense, and was regularly employed for everything from ‘liking’ a comrade to passionately ‘kissing’ a lover. [Agape] was used both for divine and chaste human love, and for specifically physical relationships, often between members of the same sex.” (Pg. 5-7)
He clarifies, “Modern English has no standard term for same-sex partners in a permanent, committed relationship, so it is virtually impossible to translate ancient terms for this… into contemporary English ‘Spouse’ is confusing and objectionable to may (both gay and straight, though for different reasons); ‘partner’ works better, but is rather vague… Nonetheless, I have relied heavily on it in translating ancient and medieval terms for same-sex partners: the ambiguity is often present in the original as well.” (Pg. 15)
He observes, “Obviously Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Cicero, and other ancient males had and knew friendships that were not erotic, and love relationships that were not friendships. The point is … that there was a substantial overlap, which is not a part of modern conceptualizations of friendship, owing to the pervasive taboo against homosexuality in modern nations. Homosexuality would ‘defile’ a modern friendship in the eyes of the heterosexual majority, or at least transform it into something other than friendship… And just as in modern heterosexual friendships the role of eroticism is often not entirely clear---even to those involved---it was probably often cloudy to the parties in intense same-sex friendships in the ancient world.” (Pg. 78-79)
He suggests, “It is known that male couples swore oaths and made pledges to each other at the tomb of Iolaus, Hercules’ beloved. This may have constituted a formalization of same-sex unions, comparable to a heterosexual wedding, but too little is known about the custom and the consent of the ‘pledges’ to be sure. If they swore to remain together for life, would this constitute a same-sex marriage?... many ancient Greed same-sex couples… were in fact buried together, like husband and wife.” (Pg. 88)
He quotes the famous line of Ruth to Naomi [Ruth 1:16] and comments, “This line is less memorable and dramatic in the original Hebrew, or in any other translation, than it is in Jacobean English, and there is little in the Book of Ruth to suggest that anything other than loyalty bound Ruth to Naomi (who had, in fact, suggested that Ruth depart, along with her other daughters-in-law; but Ruth refused to do so). On the other hand, Boaz (who fancied Naomi) was moved by the exceptional devotion Ruther showed to her mother-in-law.” (Pg. 138)
He summarizes, “residents of the nations emerging from pagan antiquity into the Christian Middle Ages had many reasons to contemn heterosexual arrangements, viewed as a terrestrial convenience or advantage, and at the same time to admire same-sex passion and unions---the residual cult of the masculine and masculine attachments to the many examples of military martyrs joined at death by their devotion both to God and to each other. All of this makes it less surprising that when the Christian church finally devised ceremonies of commitment, some of them should have been for same-gender couples.” (Pg. 161)
He argues, “the same-sex union prayers specifically invoked much admired paired male saint couples, including saints Serge and Bacchus, well known archetypes of Christian same-sex pairing. The name of the fourth ceremony of union is the most difficult to translate… One translation would be ‘prayer for making brothers,’ but there are many cogent reasons to regard this as a misleading translation, and to consider this set of ‘prayers’ the same-sex equivalent of the others.” (Pg. 181-182)
He asks, “Was the ceremony ‘homosexual’ in an erotic sense? This is hard to answer for societies without a comparable nomenclature or taxonomy. Most premodern societies drew less rigid distinctions among ‘romance,’ ‘eroticism,’ ‘friendship,’ and ‘sexuality’ than do modern cultures… Did it celebrate a relationship between two men or two women that was (or became) sexual? Probably, sometimes, but this is obviously a difficult question to answer about the past since participants cannot be interrogated.” (Pg. 189)
He turns to potential objections to his ideas: “the phrase ‘spiritual brothers’ … in Greek canon law [is] for something clearly and entirely different from any relationship created by this ceremony… Might it be simply a commemoration of friendship? This is at least conceivable but rendered problematic by the fact that the common Greek word for ‘friend’… does not occur in the ceremony or in any references to it. And why is the office always for two and never for three or four?... Could it be fraternal adoption? It could be, but it is worth remembering that most of the documented instances of ‘adopting a brother’ in the ancient world clearly involved homosexual attachments…” (Pg. 193-195)
He points out, “It is nonetheless clear that ceremonial same-sex unions were parallel to heterosexual marriage in the ninth century… It was most likely for this reason that monks were always and everywhere prohibited from entering into same-sex unions, just as they were forbidden to contract heterosexual marriage in both East and West, by both civil and ecclesiastical law… A more or less contemporary ruling for laypeople makes perfectly evident that same-sex unions were altogether legal.” (Pg. 240)
He acknowledges, “From the fourteenth century on, Western Europe was gripped by a rabid and obsessive negative preoccupation with homosexuality as the most horrible of sine. The reasons for this have never been adequately explained.” He adds in a footnote, “I offered suggestions in CSTH, which hardly met with widespread support, and which I myself feel less strongly about now.” (Pg. 262)
He concludes, “In many ways from a contemporary point of view, the most pressing question addressed by this work is probably whether the Christian ceremony of same-sex union functioned in the past as a ‘gay marriage ceremony.’ It is clear that it did, although… the nature and purposes of every sort of marriage have varied widely over time… I have not composed the same-sex union ceremony that seems to parallel heterosexual marriage, but only discovered it, and felt it my duty as a historian to share it.” (Pg. 280-281)
Not as pathbreaking as his earlier ‘Social Tolerance’ book, this book will nevertheless be “must reading” for those seriously studying the issues relating the homosexuality and Christianity.
John Eastburn Boswell (1947-1994; he died from AIDS-related complications) was a historian and professor at Yale University.
He wrote in the Preface of this 1994 book of how he “discovered many versions of the ceremony that were obviously the same-sex equivalent of a medieval heterosexual marriage ceremony… I wonder if the Paris versions represent simplified (or even bowdlerized) medieval versions of the ceremony of union. In any event, I publish them here for that readers can judge for themselves. Over the years, I have often spoke publicly about the ceremony and its ramifications. I now doubt that this was a wise decision… because over the decade I have been assembling the material, my opinions on various aspects of it have evolved and changed, as is inevitably the case in any long scholarly project. Many people may have been misled in minor ways by what I said at earlier stages of my research, since these informal presentations on work in progress were widely disseminated and quoted.” (Pg. x)
He explains in the Introduction, “The question that will immediately leap to the mind of a resident of the modern West about the same-sex liturgical unions described in the following chapters… is ‘were they homosexual?’ … [The] morally paramount distinction suggested by this question… was largely unknown to the societies in which the unions first took place, making the question anachronistic and to some extent unanswerable… and even where the difference was noticed and commented on, it was much less important to premodern Europeans than many other moral and practical distinctions regarding human couplings. It was adultery that troubled most medieval Christians… not gender of the party with whom it was committed.” (Pg. xxv)
He notes, “It is difficult to account for the fact that although many, many sources indicate that women also formed permanent same-sex unions, all of the surviving ceremonies invoke male archetypes. This is probably a subset of the general domination of women by men in Western society, as evidenced in the fact that in most Christian communions the father still ‘gives the bride away,’ although notions of women as the property of fathers or husbands have log since disappeared… it is entirely possible that women were content to devise their own forms and promises, as they might to today.” (Pg. xxviii)
He points out, “The idea that Greek-speakers of the ancient world… made nice distinctions among the several Greek words that express ‘love’---a notion widely popularized among the English-speaking public by C.S. Lewis---is a misprision. In fact, the three most common Greek expressions for ‘love’… were largely interchangeable, although each carried with it a slightly different congeries of association. [Eros] was associated chiefly with passionate love… [Philia] was the general term for friendship, usually considered (than and now) distinguishable from ‘eros,’ but the related verb… was the single most common word for ‘love’ in every sense, and was regularly employed for everything from ‘liking’ a comrade to passionately ‘kissing’ a lover. [Agape] was used both for divine and chaste human love, and for specifically physical relationships, often between members of the same sex.” (Pg. 5-7)
He clarifies, “Modern English has no standard term for same-sex partners in a permanent, committed relationship, so it is virtually impossible to translate ancient terms for this… into contemporary English ‘Spouse’ is confusing and objectionable to may (both gay and straight, though for different reasons); ‘partner’ works better, but is rather vague… Nonetheless, I have relied heavily on it in translating ancient and medieval terms for same-sex partners: the ambiguity is often present in the original as well.” (Pg. 15)
He observes, “Obviously Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Cicero, and other ancient males had and knew friendships that were not erotic, and love relationships that were not friendships. The point is … that there was a substantial overlap, which is not a part of modern conceptualizations of friendship, owing to the pervasive taboo against homosexuality in modern nations. Homosexuality would ‘defile’ a modern friendship in the eyes of the heterosexual majority, or at least transform it into something other than friendship… And just as in modern heterosexual friendships the role of eroticism is often not entirely clear---even to those involved---it was probably often cloudy to the parties in intense same-sex friendships in the ancient world.” (Pg. 78-79)
He suggests, “It is known that male couples swore oaths and made pledges to each other at the tomb of Iolaus, Hercules’ beloved. This may have constituted a formalization of same-sex unions, comparable to a heterosexual wedding, but too little is known about the custom and the consent of the ‘pledges’ to be sure. If they swore to remain together for life, would this constitute a same-sex marriage?... many ancient Greed same-sex couples… were in fact buried together, like husband and wife.” (Pg. 88)
He quotes the famous line of Ruth to Naomi [Ruth 1:16] and comments, “This line is less memorable and dramatic in the original Hebrew, or in any other translation, than it is in Jacobean English, and there is little in the Book of Ruth to suggest that anything other than loyalty bound Ruth to Naomi (who had, in fact, suggested that Ruth depart, along with her other daughters-in-law; but Ruth refused to do so). On the other hand, Boaz (who fancied Naomi) was moved by the exceptional devotion Ruther showed to her mother-in-law.” (Pg. 138)
He summarizes, “residents of the nations emerging from pagan antiquity into the Christian Middle Ages had many reasons to contemn heterosexual arrangements, viewed as a terrestrial convenience or advantage, and at the same time to admire same-sex passion and unions---the residual cult of the masculine and masculine attachments to the many examples of military martyrs joined at death by their devotion both to God and to each other. All of this makes it less surprising that when the Christian church finally devised ceremonies of commitment, some of them should have been for same-gender couples.” (Pg. 161)
He argues, “the same-sex union prayers specifically invoked much admired paired male saint couples, including saints Serge and Bacchus, well known archetypes of Christian same-sex pairing. The name of the fourth ceremony of union is the most difficult to translate… One translation would be ‘prayer for making brothers,’ but there are many cogent reasons to regard this as a misleading translation, and to consider this set of ‘prayers’ the same-sex equivalent of the others.” (Pg. 181-182)
He asks, “Was the ceremony ‘homosexual’ in an erotic sense? This is hard to answer for societies without a comparable nomenclature or taxonomy. Most premodern societies drew less rigid distinctions among ‘romance,’ ‘eroticism,’ ‘friendship,’ and ‘sexuality’ than do modern cultures… Did it celebrate a relationship between two men or two women that was (or became) sexual? Probably, sometimes, but this is obviously a difficult question to answer about the past since participants cannot be interrogated.” (Pg. 189)
He turns to potential objections to his ideas: “the phrase ‘spiritual brothers’ … in Greek canon law [is] for something clearly and entirely different from any relationship created by this ceremony… Might it be simply a commemoration of friendship? This is at least conceivable but rendered problematic by the fact that the common Greek word for ‘friend’… does not occur in the ceremony or in any references to it. And why is the office always for two and never for three or four?... Could it be fraternal adoption? It could be, but it is worth remembering that most of the documented instances of ‘adopting a brother’ in the ancient world clearly involved homosexual attachments…” (Pg. 193-195)
He points out, “It is nonetheless clear that ceremonial same-sex unions were parallel to heterosexual marriage in the ninth century… It was most likely for this reason that monks were always and everywhere prohibited from entering into same-sex unions, just as they were forbidden to contract heterosexual marriage in both East and West, by both civil and ecclesiastical law… A more or less contemporary ruling for laypeople makes perfectly evident that same-sex unions were altogether legal.” (Pg. 240)
He acknowledges, “From the fourteenth century on, Western Europe was gripped by a rabid and obsessive negative preoccupation with homosexuality as the most horrible of sine. The reasons for this have never been adequately explained.” He adds in a footnote, “I offered suggestions in CSTH, which hardly met with widespread support, and which I myself feel less strongly about now.” (Pg. 262)
He concludes, “In many ways from a contemporary point of view, the most pressing question addressed by this work is probably whether the Christian ceremony of same-sex union functioned in the past as a ‘gay marriage ceremony.’ It is clear that it did, although… the nature and purposes of every sort of marriage have varied widely over time… I have not composed the same-sex union ceremony that seems to parallel heterosexual marriage, but only discovered it, and felt it my duty as a historian to share it.” (Pg. 280-281)
Not as pathbreaking as his earlier ‘Social Tolerance’ book, this book will nevertheless be “must reading” for those seriously studying the issues relating the homosexuality and Christianity.
July 24, 2014
A fascinating work of compelling, erudite scholarship. The eminent Yale historian John Boswell takes on a monumental study of same-sex behavior in premodern Europe, forwarding the controversial claim that both the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches not simply permitted but actually performed official marriage rites for same-sex couples prior to the eleventh century.
Boswell begins with careful discussions of the terminology and definitions of the words employed in the study, which was both helpful and revealing. Then he follows this with two lengthy chapters on the historical development of love and marriage from the days of Plato (roughly the same time as David and Solomon) all the way up to the 9th century, in both heterosexual and homosexual couplings. The information here was invaluable and captivating, demonstrating among many other things that there is amply ancient evidence of people with lifelong partnerships and marriages to lovers of the same sex during this time. Then he shifts into an examination of what changed and did not change with the advent of early Christianity in the same period, followed by several chapters that address the parallel structures of marriage rites for both heterosexual and homosexual couples within the Church, effectively demonstrating that they were viewed as binding marriage contracts.
It should be noted at this point that many Christians will find such a position preposterous on the face of it, given what is presumed to be the clear teaching of Scripture. Such people are apt to suspect the book of foul play, or of being a mere polemic by an openly biased author. To the contrary, however, Boswell's primary concern is historical, to draw back the veil of our assumptions about the past and present it as it is, or as close as we can come to "as it was". The book is no polemic and he resorts to no bombastic rhetoric of discovering hithertofore unknown documents that secretly prove traditionalists are wrong. Rather, the book is a careful and reserved study of the known literature, demarcating between what is known, what is probable, and what is unlikely. Boswell does not pull back from noting weaknesses and areas where information simply is not known, and in fact includes about a hundred pages of appendices with the ancient documents in question in the original languages and in translation, with extensive notes, so that others can both follow and challenge him. Hardly the mark of a polemical author intent on concealing, rather than discussing.
In my opinion, the book demonstrates its thesis amply, and I think it is a good many Christians need to honestly wrestle with.
Boswell begins with careful discussions of the terminology and definitions of the words employed in the study, which was both helpful and revealing. Then he follows this with two lengthy chapters on the historical development of love and marriage from the days of Plato (roughly the same time as David and Solomon) all the way up to the 9th century, in both heterosexual and homosexual couplings. The information here was invaluable and captivating, demonstrating among many other things that there is amply ancient evidence of people with lifelong partnerships and marriages to lovers of the same sex during this time. Then he shifts into an examination of what changed and did not change with the advent of early Christianity in the same period, followed by several chapters that address the parallel structures of marriage rites for both heterosexual and homosexual couples within the Church, effectively demonstrating that they were viewed as binding marriage contracts.
It should be noted at this point that many Christians will find such a position preposterous on the face of it, given what is presumed to be the clear teaching of Scripture. Such people are apt to suspect the book of foul play, or of being a mere polemic by an openly biased author. To the contrary, however, Boswell's primary concern is historical, to draw back the veil of our assumptions about the past and present it as it is, or as close as we can come to "as it was". The book is no polemic and he resorts to no bombastic rhetoric of discovering hithertofore unknown documents that secretly prove traditionalists are wrong. Rather, the book is a careful and reserved study of the known literature, demarcating between what is known, what is probable, and what is unlikely. Boswell does not pull back from noting weaknesses and areas where information simply is not known, and in fact includes about a hundred pages of appendices with the ancient documents in question in the original languages and in translation, with extensive notes, so that others can both follow and challenge him. Hardly the mark of a polemical author intent on concealing, rather than discussing.
In my opinion, the book demonstrates its thesis amply, and I think it is a good many Christians need to honestly wrestle with.
August 29, 2011
Make no mistake, this is a scholarly text. It is not fluffy, it is not an easy read. There are numerous inclusions of Greek, Arabic, Latin, Russian and Hebrew in the text, in the footnotes, and, in some cases, entire works in these languages in the appendix. It is a well documented, well researched treatise on Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (meaning from the time of Ancient Greek and Roman culture up through the end of the "Dark Ages" in Europe)
Truthfully, I had no idea how much I didn't know until I read this book. I was seriously blown away and I don't regret a single minute I spent with this book (as it took me nearly 3 months to finish.) While I can't read any of the languages of the original texts (and I seriously wish I could) and therefore can't make a truly solid argument as to the veracity of his findings, what I can see is the meticulous care he's taken to research and support all of his theories. That alone leads me to believe that this is the real deal and everything he's printed is absolutely true to the best of his research. The bottom line is this: The marriage's of today are almost completely unlike the marriages of premodern Europe, and once upon a time, it just wasn't all that odd for same sex couples to be united. So much was this the case, that actual liturgy was written to accomplish it and was distributed within the church.
So, when the next person starts spouting off about 'traditional marriage values' point them at this book, first to learn just what really did constitute a so-called 'traditional' marriage, and then to understand that what they believe to be true might just not be the case at all.
Truthfully, I had no idea how much I didn't know until I read this book. I was seriously blown away and I don't regret a single minute I spent with this book (as it took me nearly 3 months to finish.) While I can't read any of the languages of the original texts (and I seriously wish I could) and therefore can't make a truly solid argument as to the veracity of his findings, what I can see is the meticulous care he's taken to research and support all of his theories. That alone leads me to believe that this is the real deal and everything he's printed is absolutely true to the best of his research. The bottom line is this: The marriage's of today are almost completely unlike the marriages of premodern Europe, and once upon a time, it just wasn't all that odd for same sex couples to be united. So much was this the case, that actual liturgy was written to accomplish it and was distributed within the church.
So, when the next person starts spouting off about 'traditional marriage values' point them at this book, first to learn just what really did constitute a so-called 'traditional' marriage, and then to understand that what they believe to be true might just not be the case at all.
May 30, 2013
Superb book altho' too scholarly and too footnoted for the average reader....makes the undeniable case that throughout much of Europe--both East and West--same-sex "unions" were widely known and recognized, and often accompanied by formal nuptial ceremonies...in many cases, with priests as witnesses or officiants. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern church had formalized liturgies, and several dozen have been found in various archives and libraries. Observers recall witnessing such ceremonies until close to the 20th century. Now, whether you want to call these unions "marriages," or not---that may be the classic distinction without a differences: in all details they were parallel ceremonies and amount to the same thing. Readers may also enjoy (or not) the prefatory several chapters which describe and discuss marriage in general in the Greco-Roman world---some eye-opening revelations there which will surprise today's church-goer.For the literalist/fundamentalist who insists that "marriage" dates to the Garden of Eden, and that NEVEr in the history of the world has there been recognition of same-sex marriages (or unions)...well, he's in for a gross shock. PS.....Boswell appends a number of said documents, in the original languages AND in translations.
October 15, 2017
Very academic, so a little dry in parts, but fascinating nonetheless.
Reading this in the midst of this shitty public "debate" regarding marriage equality in Australia right now has been... emotional. All those times we hear homophobes rail against same-sex marriage as not being "traditional" or "the way the Church intended", all that "not Adam and Steve" rubbish - and yet here is the actual history, the well researched facts that show those so-called arguments as the outright lies that they are. Marriage has NOT always been between a man and a woman - even marriage in the Christian church has NOT always been so.
I could cry at the beauty of some of the ancient prayers recorded here in translation. One gets glimpses of the promise of Christianity, how this breakaway sect was supposed to be all about love. Alas, that was a long time ago.
Reading this in the midst of this shitty public "debate" regarding marriage equality in Australia right now has been... emotional. All those times we hear homophobes rail against same-sex marriage as not being "traditional" or "the way the Church intended", all that "not Adam and Steve" rubbish - and yet here is the actual history, the well researched facts that show those so-called arguments as the outright lies that they are. Marriage has NOT always been between a man and a woman - even marriage in the Christian church has NOT always been so.
I could cry at the beauty of some of the ancient prayers recorded here in translation. One gets glimpses of the promise of Christianity, how this breakaway sect was supposed to be all about love. Alas, that was a long time ago.
May 10, 2017
I never thought I'd call a book titled "The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe" fun, but it was actually fun! I'm a massive nerd, so that probably contributed, but I found it understandable (if you have the concentration to ignore the Greek and Latin footnotes), intelligent, and, at times, very funny. The author injects just enough dry humour at the contrast of the world then and now to make me laugh without distracting me from the point. Though if you're not a massive nerd maybe this isn't for you.
December 4, 2022
3 / 4 : Read!
[Ground-breaking analysis of early-Christian same-sex ceremonies]
Beginning with Classical Greek conceptions of love, Boswell's book soberly lays out the complicated world of partnership in Late-antiquity, early Christian world, a more multi-layered slice of history than it's often given credit as being.
Like in any time, society's attitude towards sexuality speaks to its very core.
NON-FICTION
[Ground-breaking analysis of early-Christian same-sex ceremonies]
Beginning with Classical Greek conceptions of love, Boswell's book soberly lays out the complicated world of partnership in Late-antiquity, early Christian world, a more multi-layered slice of history than it's often given credit as being.
Like in any time, society's attitude towards sexuality speaks to its very core.
NON-FICTION
May 25, 2019
A much more even handed and cautious exploration than seen in previous works but compelling nonetheless. Much of what is written here has now been better confirmed but the same problems with this type of research remains. Still a fascinating read and worthwhile. I enjoyed to appendix of translations and am glad they were included.
March 27, 2020
Ehhh, nice try, I guess? I mean, sure, if words mean whatever you want, then any sort of church service for being consecrated to a spiritual brotherhood or sisterhood is a "same-sex union" (with all the postmodern/sexual implications of that phrase) rather than what they actually were, i.e., something akin to a tonsuring ceremony. Revisionist nonsense.
May 30, 2013
Wishful thinking at best, Ridiculous and revisionist in all truth.
July 23, 2019
This book did an enormous amount of work opening my eyes to how truly differently people in the past viewed romantic relationships, including marriage. And I'm not just talking about homosexual unions (which are not called marriages here with good reason) but unions of all stripes from antiquity to the middle ages. I haven't had this kind of eye-opening experience since college: The kind where you walk away realizing how small-minded you've been, because there's a much larger gap between your society's outlook on the world versus other cultures'. It's exactly how I want to feel when I walk away from reading a nonfiction book which presents new information about our world, info which is meticulously detailed, outlined, and footnoted like this.
The one drawback is that the footnotes, which go an enormous way toward establishing the credibility of the author and his thesis, often feel like as much required reading as the book itself. And they are intense. There's almost always several footnotes per page, some of them short references or quick notes on word choice, but many of them long contextual dissertations themselves. And while the book is a bit groundbreaking for generally assuming a non-scholarly audience, Boswell pulls absolutely no punches with his word choice, inclusion of the original Greek, and the density of the prose he packed into a deceptively short-looking book.
An important note: The book was written over two decades ago. Readers may wonder if it's worth trying a book that's had plenty of time for its thesis to be overshadowed by more contemporary scholars. As far as I could tell from a light bit of googling, one of his contemporaries challenged a key part of Boswell's interpretation, and Boswell acknowledged that his peer might have a point but that he believed the overall premise of the book still stands. Unfortunately, it would appear that no one has returned to the subject since to challenge or update these assertions.
But for anyone who's sick of reading nonfiction where citational stinginess makes it hard to know which assertions are true vs the author's personal theories, or who's a fan of nonfiction which doesn't get bogged down in a cult of personality, this book is for you. It might be dry, ponderous, and slow to get through. But it's a breath of fresh air compared to the modern aesthetic of nonfiction which keeps it's sources and reasoning murky for the sake of being a fun and easy read, and ultimately doesn't do enough to prove their assertions.
The one drawback is that the footnotes, which go an enormous way toward establishing the credibility of the author and his thesis, often feel like as much required reading as the book itself. And they are intense. There's almost always several footnotes per page, some of them short references or quick notes on word choice, but many of them long contextual dissertations themselves. And while the book is a bit groundbreaking for generally assuming a non-scholarly audience, Boswell pulls absolutely no punches with his word choice, inclusion of the original Greek, and the density of the prose he packed into a deceptively short-looking book.
An important note: The book was written over two decades ago. Readers may wonder if it's worth trying a book that's had plenty of time for its thesis to be overshadowed by more contemporary scholars. As far as I could tell from a light bit of googling, one of his contemporaries challenged a key part of Boswell's interpretation, and Boswell acknowledged that his peer might have a point but that he believed the overall premise of the book still stands. Unfortunately, it would appear that no one has returned to the subject since to challenge or update these assertions.
But for anyone who's sick of reading nonfiction where citational stinginess makes it hard to know which assertions are true vs the author's personal theories, or who's a fan of nonfiction which doesn't get bogged down in a cult of personality, this book is for you. It might be dry, ponderous, and slow to get through. But it's a breath of fresh air compared to the modern aesthetic of nonfiction which keeps it's sources and reasoning murky for the sake of being a fun and easy read, and ultimately doesn't do enough to prove their assertions.
May 8, 2024
I bought this book for some research and was completely astounded by the content I read. Never before had I seen liturgical texts documenting same sex relationships until the middle ages that were fully sanctioned and seen as normal in Christian communities that grew from the Roman and Greek Empires. A fascinating piece of research from John that teaches the whole history of marriage from being about property and possession to the modern day understanding of Christian marriage that did not become a sacrament until the 4th Lateran Council in the the 14th Cent. Completely amazing and for a scholarly piece of work it was easy to follow. Also a great insight to the early church fathers and what they thought on the subject. Perhaps what is amazing about this book is that the documents he quotes and allows you to read were taken from the Vatican archives and that the Vatican authorities allowed him access to them for the purpose of writing this book.
Damian North
Damian North
April 29, 2023
DNF at about 80%.
I bought this book about five years ago, and finally last December I decided to chuck it in my TBR pile.
Look... I did enjoy what I got through. This is fascinating. Despite being written and published in the early 90s, much of Boswell's views are extremely modern. He mentions asexuality, recognises couples might not want children- it's amazing!
But blimey, the formatting is terrible. The footnotes take up the majority of the pages, and much of them would be better as an appendix or separate chapters. No translations are provided for the Greek words and text, and I apologise, but the lettering is a little indecipherable with the font. I'd have loved some wider margins for the quotes as well.
Maybe I'll try this again in the future, as I did nearly get through all of it, but I had to throw in the towel.
I bought this book about five years ago, and finally last December I decided to chuck it in my TBR pile.
Look... I did enjoy what I got through. This is fascinating. Despite being written and published in the early 90s, much of Boswell's views are extremely modern. He mentions asexuality, recognises couples might not want children- it's amazing!
But blimey, the formatting is terrible. The footnotes take up the majority of the pages, and much of them would be better as an appendix or separate chapters. No translations are provided for the Greek words and text, and I apologise, but the lettering is a little indecipherable with the font. I'd have loved some wider margins for the quotes as well.
Maybe I'll try this again in the future, as I did nearly get through all of it, but I had to throw in the towel.
April 1, 2025
Fascinating, but a bit difficult for a layperson like myself to follow. The author is definitely an academic and writes like one, which is both a plus and minus. He does a good job of distilling his ideas, but often adds some context in the footnotes that would be better served in the paragraph text. It's clearly more of a research book than I initially expected it to be, chock full of information, academic supposition, and supporting evidence, but it's an interesting read if you're particularly interested in the subject. Some of the chapters are quite dry and I found myself taking long breaks in order to complete the book in its entirety, but given the denseness that is understandable.
January 10, 2025
O John Boswell (1947-1994) ήταν διακεκριμένος Αμερικανός ιστορικός με ειδίκευση στην ομοφυλοφιλία συγκριτικά με τη θρησκεία και αυτό είναι το τέταρτο και τελευταίο βιβλίο που εξέδωσε πριν πεθάνει. Ήταν πολύγλωσσος και τα έργα του επέφεραν σημαντικές αλλαγές στον τρόπο πρόσληψης και ερμηνείας της δυτικής παράδοσης. Παρ’ όλα τα βραβεία τους πάντως, πολλά από τα θέματα που θίγουν δεν έχουν γίνει αποδεκτά από επίσημες πηγές ούτε έχουν αποδειχθεί, όπως επιμένουν οι επιστήμονες, ενώ τίθενται υπό αμφισβήτηση από σημαντικούς ιστορικούς μελετητές της εποχής του Μεσαίωνα. Οι διφορούμενες εργασίες του πάντως εγείρουν ένα σωρό ενδιαφέροντα ερωτήματα που ο καθένας από μας μπορεί να τα ψάξει περαιτέρω και το πιο σημαντικό είναι ότι έφεραν το ζήτημα κυρίως των ομόφυλων σχέσεων στην ακαδημαϊκή κοινότητα.
Ο εκδοτικός οίκος Ζαχαρόπουλος μετέφρασε στα ελληνικά το πιο σημαντικό έργο του συγγραφέα και επιτρέπει στον μελετητή αλλά και στον απλό αναγνώστη να εντρυφήσει στις διαπροσωπικές σχέσεις κυρίως μεταξύ ανδρών από την αρχαία Ελλάδα ως τη μεσαιωνική Ευρώπη. Εύληπτη και κατανοητή γλώσσα, ξεκάθαρα δομημένη ροή αφήγησης, υποσημειώσεις που εμπλουτίζουν το κείμενο χωρίς να το βαραίνουν ή να καθυστερούν την ανάγνωση με βοήθησαν να εντρυφήσω σ’ έναν κόσμο, σε μια εποχή και σ’ έναν χώρο ουσιαστικά άγνωστα ή τουλάχιστον ποτισμένα με τις σημερινές θέσεις, προκαταλήψεις, αντιλήψεις και απόψεις, οπότε μπήκαν αρκετά πράγματα στη θέση τους. Το βιβλίο ξεκινάει με διασάφηση των όρων «γάμος», «έρωτας», «ερωτευμένος» κλπ., συνεχίζει με τα ήθη και τα έθιμα του γάμου ετεροφύλων στον ελληνο-ρωμαϊκό κόσμο πριν αναπτυχθούν οι ενώσεις ατόμων του ιδίου φύλου την ίδια εποχή και φτάνουμε στη νέα θρησκεία, στον θρίαμβο του χριστιανισμού, όπου τα πάντα αλλάζουν, στα παραδείγματα στρατιωτών αγίων που πέθαναν μαζί λόγω της αφοσίωσής τους στον Θεό, στην εξέλιξη της τελετής του γάμου από κει και πέρα και στη σύγκριση τελετών ένωσης ομοφύλων και ετεροφύλων για να καταλήξουμε στις ενώσεις ομοφύλων στη μεσαιωνική Ευρώπη.
Από την αρχή ο συγγραφέας ξεκαθαρίζει πως θα αναφερθεί σε μια εποχή εντελώς διαφορετική από τη δική μας, όπου κυριαρχούσαν η εξύμνηση των ηρωικών μορφών, οι παρατηρήσεις για την επιτυχία ή μη των αγροτικών κύκλων, η μελέτη θρησκευτικών και πολιτικών παραδόσεων, θέματα που δεν έχουν καμία σχέση με το σήμερα, όπου στα λογοτεχνικά έργα κυριαρχεί ο ρομαντικός έρωτας και η αναπόσπαστη σύνδεσή του με τον γάμο. Επίσης στην περίοδο όπου αναφέρεται το βιβλίο η έννοια «γάμος» έχει πολλές αβέβαιες ερμηνείες και μη ηθικές εφαρμογές ενώ δε λείπουν οι περιπτώσεις ανθρώπων που είχαν παντρευτεί αλλά όχι για αναπαραγωγή, όπως έχει καθιερωθεί αυτό ως στερεότυπο στη χριστιανική παράδοση. Τέλος, ας μην ξεχνάμε πως τον 14ο αιώνα η ομοφυλοφιλία είχε αναχθεί σε κυρίαρχο ταμπού της δυτικής κοινωνίας, άκρως απαγορευμένο και υπό διωγμό, όχι τόσο λόγω της ηθικής βαρύτητας όσο λόγω της συναισθηματικής της φύσης. Έτσι λοιπόν ο συγγραφέας λαμβάνει υπ’ όψιν τις διαστρεβλωτικές επιρροές που εμποδίζουν τις απαντήσεις σε πολλά ερωτήματα της μελέτης του για τα πρώιμα στάδια του δυτικού πολιτισμού και ταυτόχρονα προσπαθεί να μην παρασυρθεί σε πολλά επιχειρήματα που ίσως βρουν αντίθετους τους περισσότερους αναγνώστες και να περιοριστεί στην εξαγωγή λογικών συμπερασμάτων εικοτολογώντας όσο γίνεται λιγότερο. Επίσης, σημαντικό είναι να κατανοήσουμε πως οι όροι «γάμος», «γαμήλιος», «συζυγικός» κλπ. χρησιμοποιούνται με τη σημασία εκείνης της περιόδου, δηλαδή με τον τρόπο που καθόριζαν τον γάμο τότε και πάλι βάσει συμπερασμάτων, επομένως όχι με τη σύγχρονη σημασία. Για άλλη μια φορά ο συγγραφέας, φοβούμενος τις αντιδράσεις λόγω προσωπικής απέχθειας ή προκαταλήψεων τονίζει πως χρησιμοποιεί όσο πιο ευρεία φρασεολογία γίνεται («ένωση», «σύζευξη» κλπ.) και ταυτόχρονα δεν αποκλείει τη χρήση της λέξης «γάμος» όπου αυτό του φαίνεται η πιο ακριβής περιγραφή.
Κύριος στόχος της μελέτης είναι να καθοριστεί αν οι διάφορες μορφές ομοφυλοφιλικών σχέσεων αποτελούσαν γάμους εφόσον δεν υπάρχει ιστορικός λόγος να συμπεράνουμε ότι δεν αποτελούσαν κάτι τέτοιο. Επίσης, ξεκαθαρίζεται η έννοια της «αδελφοποίησης» που είναι κάτι πιο κοντά στον σύγχρονο γάμο όπως τον ορίζει η βιομηχανική κοινωνία, ως μια ενότητα αμοιβαίας εμπιστοσύνης είτε ικανοποιείται το συναισθηματικό ή ερωτικό περιεχόμενο της ένωσης είτε όχι. Οι ενώσεις ομοφύλων ήταν ευρύτατα διαδεδομένες στον αρχαίο κόσμο, όπου ο γάμος ετεροφύλων ήταν κυρίως ένας επιχειρηματικός ή δυναστικός διακανονισμός. Σε κάθε εποχή και τόπο η τελετή του γάμου πληρούσε αυτό που οι περισσότεροι σήμερα θεωρούμε ως πεμπτουσία του γάμου: μια μόνιμη ρομαντική δέσμευση μεταξύ δύο ανθρώπων, με μάρτυρες να την πιστοποιήσουν και αναγνωρισμένη από την κοινότητα. Ο συγγραφέας καταφέρνει να μεταδώσει με σαφήνεια, εμβριθή γραφή και πάρα πολλά παραδείγματα και πηγές την έννοια των ομοφυλοφιλικών ενώσεων από την αρχαιότητα ως τη μεσαιωνική Ευρώπη, να την αναπτύξει ιστορικά και θρησκειολογικά, να την αντιπαραθέσει με τις βασικές αρχές και τις έννοιες του χριστιανισμού και όλο αυτό να αποτελέσει ένα όμορφο, διαφορετικό και πλούσιο σε ιδέες και νοήματα ταξίδι για όποιον θέλει να γνωρίσει καλύτερα το σχετικό παρελθόν ώστε να δει με ανοιχτά μάτια την εξέλιξή του στη σημερινή εποχή. Παραρτήματα με μεταφράσεις πηγών και με άλλα έγγραφα που τεκμηριώνουν αδιάψευστα τα γραφόμενα του βιβλίου συμπληρώνουν την εργασία.
Πρώτη δημοσίευση στο site μου: https://www.vivliokritikes.com/%ce%b3...
Ο εκδοτικός οίκος Ζαχαρόπουλος μετέφρασε στα ελληνικά το πιο σημαντικό έργο του συγγραφέα και επιτρέπει στον μελετητή αλλά και στον απλό αναγνώστη να εντρυφήσει στις διαπροσωπικές σχέσεις κυρίως μεταξύ ανδρών από την αρχαία Ελλάδα ως τη μεσαιωνική Ευρώπη. Εύληπτη και κατανοητή γλώσσα, ξεκάθαρα δομημένη ροή αφήγησης, υποσημειώσεις που εμπλουτίζουν το κείμενο χωρίς να το βαραίνουν ή να καθυστερούν την ανάγνωση με βοήθησαν να εντρυφήσω σ’ έναν κόσμο, σε μια εποχή και σ’ έναν χώρο ουσιαστικά άγνωστα ή τουλάχιστον ποτισμένα με τις σημερινές θέσεις, προκαταλήψεις, αντιλήψεις και απόψεις, οπότε μπήκαν αρκετά πράγματα στη θέση τους. Το βιβλίο ξεκινάει με διασάφηση των όρων «γάμος», «έρωτας», «ερωτευμένος» κλπ., συνεχίζει με τα ήθη και τα έθιμα του γάμου ετεροφύλων στον ελληνο-ρωμαϊκό κόσμο πριν αναπτυχθούν οι ενώσεις ατόμων του ιδίου φύλου την ίδια εποχή και φτάνουμε στη νέα θρησκεία, στον θρίαμβο του χριστιανισμού, όπου τα πάντα αλλάζουν, στα παραδείγματα στρατιωτών αγίων που πέθαναν μαζί λόγω της αφοσίωσής τους στον Θεό, στην εξέλιξη της τελετής του γάμου από κει και πέρα και στη σύγκριση τελετών ένωσης ομοφύλων και ετεροφύλων για να καταλήξουμε στις ενώσεις ομοφύλων στη μεσαιωνική Ευρώπη.
Από την αρχή ο συγγραφέας ξεκαθαρίζει πως θα αναφερθεί σε μια εποχή εντελώς διαφορετική από τη δική μας, όπου κυριαρχούσαν η εξύμνηση των ηρωικών μορφών, οι παρατηρήσεις για την επιτυχία ή μη των αγροτικών κύκλων, η μελέτη θρησκευτικών και πολιτικών παραδόσεων, θέματα που δεν έχουν καμία σχέση με το σήμερα, όπου στα λογοτεχνικά έργα κυριαρχεί ο ρομαντικός έρωτας και η αναπόσπαστη σύνδεσή του με τον γάμο. Επίσης στην περίοδο όπου αναφέρεται το βιβλίο η έννοια «γάμος» έχει πολλές αβέβαιες ερμηνείες και μη ηθικές εφαρμογές ενώ δε λείπουν οι περιπτώσεις ανθρώπων που είχαν παντρευτεί αλλά όχι για αναπαραγωγή, όπως έχει καθιερωθεί αυτό ως στερεότυπο στη χριστιανική παράδοση. Τέλος, ας μην ξεχνάμε πως τον 14ο αιώνα η ομοφυλοφιλία είχε αναχθεί σε κυρίαρχο ταμπού της δυτικής κοινωνίας, άκρως απαγορευμένο και υπό διωγμό, όχι τόσο λόγω της ηθικής βαρύτητας όσο λόγω της συναισθηματικής της φύσης. Έτσι λοιπόν ο συγγραφέας λαμβάνει υπ’ όψιν τις διαστρεβλωτικές επιρροές που εμποδίζουν τις απαντήσεις σε πολλά ερωτήματα της μελέτης του για τα πρώιμα στάδια του δυτικού πολιτισμού και ταυτόχρονα προσπαθεί να μην παρασυρθεί σε πολλά επιχειρήματα που ίσως βρουν αντίθετους τους περισσότερους αναγνώστες και να περιοριστεί στην εξαγωγή λογικών συμπερασμάτων εικοτολογώντας όσο γίνεται λιγότερο. Επίσης, σημαντικό είναι να κατανοήσουμε πως οι όροι «γάμος», «γαμήλιος», «συζυγικός» κλπ. χρησιμοποιούνται με τη σημασία εκείνης της περιόδου, δηλαδή με τον τρόπο που καθόριζαν τον γάμο τότε και πάλι βάσει συμπερασμάτων, επομένως όχι με τη σύγχρονη σημασία. Για άλλη μια φορά ο συγγραφέας, φοβούμενος τις αντιδράσεις λόγω προσωπικής απέχθειας ή προκαταλήψεων τονίζει πως χρησιμοποιεί όσο πιο ευρεία φρασεολογία γίνεται («ένωση», «σύζευξη» κλπ.) και ταυτόχρονα δεν αποκλείει τη χρήση της λέξης «γάμος» όπου αυτό του φαίνεται η πιο ακριβής περιγραφή.
Κύριος στόχος της μελέτης είναι να καθοριστεί αν οι διάφορες μορφές ομοφυλοφιλικών σχέσεων αποτελούσαν γάμους εφόσον δεν υπάρχει ιστορικός λόγος να συμπεράνουμε ότι δεν αποτελούσαν κάτι τέτοιο. Επίσης, ξεκαθαρίζεται η έννοια της «αδελφοποίησης» που είναι κάτι πιο κοντά στον σύγχρονο γάμο όπως τον ορίζει η βιομηχανική κοινωνία, ως μια ενότητα αμοιβαίας εμπιστοσύνης είτε ικανοποιείται το συναισθηματικό ή ερωτικό περιεχόμενο της ένωσης είτε όχι. Οι ενώσεις ομοφύλων ήταν ευρύτατα διαδεδομένες στον αρχαίο κόσμο, όπου ο γάμος ετεροφύλων ήταν κυρίως ένας επιχειρηματικός ή δυναστικός διακανονισμός. Σε κάθε εποχή και τόπο η τελετή του γάμου πληρούσε αυτό που οι περισσότεροι σήμερα θεωρούμε ως πεμπτουσία του γάμου: μια μόνιμη ρομαντική δέσμευση μεταξύ δύο ανθρώπων, με μάρτυρες να την πιστοποιήσουν και αναγνωρισμένη από την κοινότητα. Ο συγγραφέας καταφέρνει να μεταδώσει με σαφήνεια, εμβριθή γραφή και πάρα πολλά παραδείγματα και πηγές την έννοια των ομοφυλοφιλικών ενώσεων από την αρχαιότητα ως τη μεσαιωνική Ευρώπη, να την αναπτύξει ιστορικά και θρησκειολογικά, να την αντιπαραθέσει με τις βασικές αρχές και τις έννοιες του χριστιανισμού και όλο αυτό να αποτελέσει ένα όμορφο, διαφορετικό και πλούσιο σε ιδέες και νοήματα ταξίδι για όποιον θέλει να γνωρίσει καλύτερα το σχετικό παρελθόν ώστε να δει με ανοιχτά μάτια την εξέλιξή του στη σημερινή εποχή. Παραρτήματα με μεταφράσεις πηγών και με άλλα έγγραφα που τεκμηριώνουν αδιάψευστα τα γραφόμενα του βιβλίου συμπληρώνουν την εργασία.
Πρώτη δημοσίευση στο site μου: https://www.vivliokritikes.com/%ce%b3...
November 21, 2023
Thoroughly researched and very academically oriented, Boswell represents both sides of the debate about whether the Church supported same-sex marriage in the distant past. He demonstrates credibly that the answer is yes, offering extensive footnotes. While not light reading, it is a good source for considering the question.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 63 reviews