Poll
- Thread starter D_Himey Longhood
- Start date
D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse
Experimental Member
jason,
That "Positions" freaks me out. I mean, common sense tells me there's been a market for erotica ever since cavewall hieroglyphics, but "The Positions" is a masterful drawing with an artists vision.
How large of a market could there have been for this sort of thing? It sounds to me like the people who viewed it & discussed it - in the 1500's & 1600's - represented a sort of underground gay community - not unlike the U.S. in the 1930's with "secret" meeting places; exclusive, private soirees, an underground. Exclusively straight men would have become offended at seeing this, its existence a breach in polite, social protocol.
So I'm guessing there was an active, hidden, thriving small gay community beneath the surface. Though I could be wrong. The word "homosexual" wasn't coined until the 1800's. People before this didn't think in terms of "a" homosexual. Homosexuals where not a thing, a noun, a person. Homosexuality was only an adjective to describe sexual behavior.
At the Getty Villa (the Getty with the large collection of roman and greek antiquities), there is a famous sculpture, "The Lansdowne Herakles". A young Hercules, homoerotic and handsome (in marble, about 125 AD). This was sculpted 14 centuries before Michelangelo, and is every bit as good as David (what happened in between antiquity and the Renaissance?? Detailed, true-to-nature realistic sculpture seems to have vanished)
File:Landsdowne Herakles.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
That "Positions" freaks me out. I mean, common sense tells me there's been a market for erotica ever since cavewall hieroglyphics, but "The Positions" is a masterful drawing with an artists vision.
How large of a market could there have been for this sort of thing? It sounds to me like the people who viewed it & discussed it - in the 1500's & 1600's - represented a sort of underground gay community - not unlike the U.S. in the 1930's with "secret" meeting places; exclusive, private soirees, an underground. Exclusively straight men would have become offended at seeing this, its existence a breach in polite, social protocol.
So I'm guessing there was an active, hidden, thriving small gay community beneath the surface. Though I could be wrong. The word "homosexual" wasn't coined until the 1800's. People before this didn't think in terms of "a" homosexual. Homosexuals where not a thing, a noun, a person. Homosexuality was only an adjective to describe sexual behavior.
At the Getty Villa (the Getty with the large collection of roman and greek antiquities), there is a famous sculpture, "The Lansdowne Herakles". A young Hercules, homoerotic and handsome (in marble, about 125 AD). This was sculpted 14 centuries before Michelangelo, and is every bit as good as David (what happened in between antiquity and the Renaissance?? Detailed, true-to-nature realistic sculpture seems to have vanished)
File:Landsdowne Herakles.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Last edited:
Indeed it was. Books in those days were very rare and very expensive. They were the province of the rich and so, therefore, had to be marketed to the rich. Now The Positions was published in 1524, less than 100 years after the Gutenberg press and while books were dripping into the middle classes, something like The Positions required intaglio prints of the artwork to be interspersed with text. That wasn't cheap. It's also worth noting that what might not raise the eye of an aristocrat, might raise the eye of the local bourgeoisie trying to maintain an air of respectability (at least the women). This would be the sort of book purchased by young men, perhaps their fathers, and passed among friends to impress them. Think of it as the Playboy of its day.
Not large, hence the exceptional quality of the work, but not gay either. Sexual orientation is a modern concept. The social construct was so rigid that no matter how homosexual a man might be, he would marry, have children, and expect to keep his wife at least somewhat satisfied. Effeminacy was tolerated only in the upper classes where it was often taken for a sign of refinement IF the man in question could also excel at male pursuits like war, hunting, fencing, falconry, dancing, chess, and of course, wenching. Who was wenched wasn't particularly important. It would not be unusual for men to bed adolescent males of lesser birth. In fact, it could prove quite lucrative for a handsome boy. What mattered was where your cock went. If you fucked a boy or had him fellate you, well then you were all-man! Never, ever, would any man admit to being the passive (and therefore feminine) partner. Sure sodomy was against the Bible and all that, but money could buy you an indulgence from the Catholic church, you could confess (unwise), or commission some beautiful work of art..... like The Martyrdom of St. Sebastian. So a man might prefer to fuck boys, or even take men as secret lovers), but the stigma, at least amongst the upper classes, didn't matter at all so long as you married at or above your station and you cranked out a few heirs.
This was definitely not safe for the lower classes, which comprised about 98% of the population of Renaissance Europe. If you were caught there was no one to buy off, unless you had a lovely virgin daughter about, and no name to protect you. If you wanted to bugger other men, you had best keep it extremely secret... or join a religious order.
Homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, rose in concept along with the middle classes at the start of the Industrial Revolution when middle class morals became the pillars of society.
It was described, quite literally, as sodomy. Sodomy, however, was anything other than missionary sex with your legal wife. You could not have oral sex with her, you could not anally penetrate her, nor could she do those things with you. Sodomy was a bitch.
Pretty much. They weren't called The Dark Ages for nothing. Trade went to Hell in a handbasket, specilized skills were lost or confined to urban areas or monastaries. Body mortification and modesty became fashionable. Rich patrons of the arts were confined to royals and aristocrats, and the Catholic church. The real killer though, was the first one. Roman trade was so efficient that one might be in England and order perfume from India and expect to get it within a year. There were materials to make paints, marble pits to take marble from, and libraries to learn from. All that disappeared; either was destroyed or confined to local areas. Learning soon followed and for many people, the world was the fief they, their parents, their grandparents, and great-grandparents, were born, lived, and died on. A lucky few might get to make holy pilgramages to Santiago or go on crusade. That's about it. It was not until the later medieval period when trade and learning began resuming but then came The Plague and it took 1/3 of Europe with it, delaying the renaissance but also fueling it too.
Meanwhile, the Islamic Empire was doing pretty well. They were busy developing mathematics, history, trade, hospitals, and spreading Islam. If I lived in medieval Europe, I'd have high-tailed it to Spain or Constantinople where life was actually pretty good and writing poetry to beautiful males was considered a respectable passtime for an educated man.
Last edited by a moderator:
D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse
Experimental Member
jason:
Damn, I love reading your posts! I remember first encountering your comments a few months ago and thinking, derisively, that you were long-winded and "elitist" and pretentious (cards on the table). But... something's happened. The breadth of your learning (and curiosity, inquisitiveness) has completely won me over.
I love you, man, based on this. I wish you health, too. You're a great guy.
As you probably know, I'm a reader. So, maybe you can suggest a couple books for me to read during '09.
I'm reading 3 books currently, and can recommend all 3 to you.
One book, I've not actually started yet. It's been sitting on an endtable collecting dust for months. I heard Gore Vidal praise it once and bought it. Non-fiction. John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (subtitled: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century")
I'm just finishing up with Mary Renault's historical fiction, "The Last of the Wine", which was written in the 1950's. A 16-year-old boy, Alexias, is a runner. He and his 25-year-old lover, Lysis, become involved with Sokrates, and one of his students, Plato in Athens. It really is a work of art, comparable to Robert Graves.
(btw, I bought Plato's "Republic" and a collection of Aristophanes plays while reading this. Don't know when I'll get around to reading those. I love bookstores, drink coffee when browsing, make a lot of impulse purchases)
The third is non-fiction, but reads like exciting fiction, by William Manchester, "A World Lit Only By Fire (the Medieval Mind and the Renaissance") -- Magellan circumnavigates the globe; you meet a succession of licentious Popes; the daily lives of peasants are chronicled; Martin Luther; Pope Leo X; bawdy, lewd & libertine papal parties (these are my favorite parts), the selling of papal indulgences. It brings the age alive in breezy, exquisitely-detailed prose.
Maybe you can make a few suggestions. I think we're probably on the same wavelength with historical reading.
Will xxxx
Damn, I love reading your posts! I remember first encountering your comments a few months ago and thinking, derisively, that you were long-winded and "elitist" and pretentious (cards on the table). But... something's happened. The breadth of your learning (and curiosity, inquisitiveness) has completely won me over.
I love you, man, based on this. I wish you health, too. You're a great guy.
As you probably know, I'm a reader. So, maybe you can suggest a couple books for me to read during '09.
I'm reading 3 books currently, and can recommend all 3 to you.
One book, I've not actually started yet. It's been sitting on an endtable collecting dust for months. I heard Gore Vidal praise it once and bought it. Non-fiction. John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (subtitled: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century")
I'm just finishing up with Mary Renault's historical fiction, "The Last of the Wine", which was written in the 1950's. A 16-year-old boy, Alexias, is a runner. He and his 25-year-old lover, Lysis, become involved with Sokrates, and one of his students, Plato in Athens. It really is a work of art, comparable to Robert Graves.
(btw, I bought Plato's "Republic" and a collection of Aristophanes plays while reading this. Don't know when I'll get around to reading those. I love bookstores, drink coffee when browsing, make a lot of impulse purchases)
The third is non-fiction, but reads like exciting fiction, by William Manchester, "A World Lit Only By Fire (the Medieval Mind and the Renaissance") -- Magellan circumnavigates the globe; you meet a succession of licentious Popes; the daily lives of peasants are chronicled; Martin Luther; Pope Leo X; bawdy, lewd & libertine papal parties (these are my favorite parts), the selling of papal indulgences. It brings the age alive in breezy, exquisitely-detailed prose.
Maybe you can make a few suggestions. I think we're probably on the same wavelength with historical reading.
Will xxxx
Last edited:
kalipygian
Expert Member
That was the first book of historical fiction she published, there are a couple that are set earlier: 'The King Must Die', and 'The Bull From the Sea', both about Theseus, and set afterward, the Mask of Apollo, the narrator is a gay actor, 'Fire From Heaven', the early life of Alexander and Haphaistion, 'The Persian Boy', told by Alexander's boyfriend Bagoas, and 'Funeral Games', after Alexander's death.. I read them all back in HS, she is still a favorite.
John Boswell also wrote 'Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe', about the rite of adelphopoiesis, a mainly orthodox ceremony of joining male couples, that used to be fairly common, until the counter-reformation.
And so my evil plot nears completion! I am certainly long-winded, completely elitist, and definitely pretentious. There you have me.
Really though, I'm quite happy there's no ill will between us and never thought there was.
I'm quite taken aback by your compliments and truly appreciate them. It's always better to make friends than enemies.
You're reading Gore Vidal and think I'm pretentious and elitist? :chairfall:. Damn! That's some pretty heady company :biggrin1:.
That actually sounds really interesting. I'm curious how he handles the question of being gay in cultures that don't have a concept of gay.
I'm a bit wary of Renault as she tends to write for 1950s audiences and ancient anthropology has advanced quite a bit since then.
If you want to understand the Greeks, the best thing to do is to read them. Thucydides is actually interesting to read as is Homer and I think you'll love Aristophanes though I urge you to understand how Greek drama was presented before reading them. Their plays were not like our plays. Read Euripides, Sappho (what's left), and anyone else you can get your hands on. They're very readable in translation. Herodotus, the Father of History, is just wonderful and you'll read about the real Battle of Marathon and just how astonishing the Greek victory was.
Plato is an absolute revelation. His dialogue is very easy to read though you'll soon feel sorry for his poor brother, Glaucon. My first philosophy teacher believed that the two thirds or so of The Republic is entirely Socrates with only the remainder belonging to Plato himself. "All philosophy is but a footnote to Plato," and if you have any interest in it, then read it. The Republic (along with Aristotle's discussions on science) basically set the foundation for western civilization. To read them is to see the dawn of the dominant civilization on the planet today. Don't stop there however, do read The Symposium (really, really, gay), and Euthyphro.
Do read the Romans too including Julius Caesar, the Plinys, Cicero, Augustus, and definitely Tacitus. The Romans were phenomenal historians and the insight they give you into Roman culture is unbeatable. The Romans cast a pretty cold and calculating eye on themselves for the most part. They were marvelously aware of where they stood in the world when both ascending and descending.
I love books like this and so will instantly recommend Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century.
For fiction, my heart still belongs to Eco's The Name of the Rose. Great book if you haven't read it. But it also more belongs to the authors of the period. Beowulf, Tristan and Isolde (one of my favorite stories of all time), Canterbury Tales (if you can deal with the language), Le Mort d'Arthur, The Mabinogian (don't get the translation by Lady Charlotte Guest as she heavily edits the explicit parts), and of course, Decameron and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.
I think the point I'm trying to convey here is that you don't have to read pseudo-histories or historical fiction to read about these people. I think it best to actually read their own words, learn about their cultures, values, sense of humor -- how they saw themselves. Only then can you really judge what anyone else has to say about them. So go ahead and read a book that's 2300 years old. They aren't so musty, dull, and incomprehensible as all that (usually) and some, like Thucydides or the Plinys, really bring history to life in the most sympathetic way. You feel like you're with a friend witnessing history as it unfolds. Pliny the Younger's account of the destruction of Pompeii in 79AD is remarkably sad. Written when he was about 19, you feel like you're standing on the ship with him watching one of Rome's most beautiful cities die along with the uncle for whom he was named:
Ashes were already falling, not as yet very thickly. I looked round: a dense black cloud was coming up behind us, spreading over the earth like a flood.'Let us leave the road while we can still see,'I said,'or we shall be knocked down and trampled underfoot in the dark by the crowd behind.'We had scarcely sat down to rest when darkness fell, not the dark of a moonless or cloudy night, but as if the lamp had been put out in a closed room.
You could hear the shrieks of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men; some were calling their parents, others their children or their wives, trying to recognize them by their voices. People bewailed their own fate or that of their relatives, and there were some who prayed for death in their terror of dying. Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore.
There were people, too, who added to the real perils by inventing fictitious dangers: some reported that part of Misenum had collapsed or another part was on fire, and though their tales were false they found others to believe them. A gleam of light returned, but we took this to be a warning of the approaching flames rather than daylight. However, the flames remained some distance off; then darkness came on once more and ashes began to fall again, this time in heavy showers. We rose from time to time and shook them off, otherwise we should have been buried and crushed beneath their weight. I could boast that not a groan or cry of fear escaped me in these perils, but I admit that I derived some poor consolation in my mortal lot from the belief that the whole world was dying with me and I with it."
[Needless to say, there is no copyright on Pliny's works.]You could hear the shrieks of women, the wailing of infants, and the shouting of men; some were calling their parents, others their children or their wives, trying to recognize them by their voices. People bewailed their own fate or that of their relatives, and there were some who prayed for death in their terror of dying. Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore.
There were people, too, who added to the real perils by inventing fictitious dangers: some reported that part of Misenum had collapsed or another part was on fire, and though their tales were false they found others to believe them. A gleam of light returned, but we took this to be a warning of the approaching flames rather than daylight. However, the flames remained some distance off; then darkness came on once more and ashes began to fall again, this time in heavy showers. We rose from time to time and shook them off, otherwise we should have been buried and crushed beneath their weight. I could boast that not a groan or cry of fear escaped me in these perils, but I admit that I derived some poor consolation in my mortal lot from the belief that the whole world was dying with me and I with it."
Pretty powerful stuff, eh?
Thanks again Will and glad to know you're a friend. I look forward to discussing many other things with you in the future. :hug:
Last edited by a moderator:
D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse
Experimental Member
jason:
I'm leafing through Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Gay People in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century"). -- Leafing through. I wouldn't say I'm formally reading it as the text is dense and scholarly (400+ pages), annotated with hundreds of footnotes.
I've always been fascinated with (and, literally, oppressed by) the third Book of the Old Testament, Leviticus. As you know, this is a book of laws - dietary laws, cleanliness codes, priestly codes - which contains the English translation "Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination.." {18:22}
----------
Boswell writes, "The Hebrew word, 'toevah', here translated 'abomination', does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters. It is used throughout the Old Testament to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occurs as part of the stock phrase 'toevah-ha-goyim', 'the uncleanliness of the Gentiles'".
(Will
Is it possible that the jews considered homosexuality simply "unclean" in the same sense that eating pork or shellfish, or cutting facial hair, or not getting circumcised was considered "unclean"? The whole idea of translations, and how (ancient) jewish texts were translated into (ancient) greek, which might not have had social customs nor sometimes even words approximating the jewish cults --- and then to have these tranlations and approximations then re-translated every step of the way, from the early christians on, from ancient languages into medieval languages (Middle English) -- until we arrive at a word - which has already been translated and re-translated, through the prism of differing cultures - to mean "abomination".
Boswell writes, " There are three passages in the writings of Paul which have been supposed to deal with homosexual relations. Two words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and one in 1 Tmothy 1:10 have been taken at least since the early twentieth century to indicate that "homosexuals" will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. The first of the two, "------", {a greek word which I cannot reproduce on this laptop!}, basically 'soft', is an extremely common Greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament with the meaning 'sick', and in patristic writings with senses as varied as 'liquid', 'cowardly', 'refined', 'weak-willed', 'delicate', 'gentle', and 'debauched'. In a specifically moral context it very frequently means 'licentious', 'loose', or 'wanting self-control'. At a broad level, it might be translated as either 'unrestrained', or 'wanton', but to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay people is wholly gratuitous. The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary with the Pauline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activities.
What is more to the point, the unanimous tradition of the church through the Reformation, and of Catholicism until well into the twentieth century, has been that this word applied to masturbation. This was the interpretation not only of the native Greek speakers in the early Middle Ages but of the very theologians who most contributed to the stigmatization of homosexuality. No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians."
(Will I wonder what events transpired in the 1800's to necessitate the formation of the word (and, therefore, class of people) "homosexual"? Why was this word necessary in 1890, say, but not in 1350?
One last from John Boswell, "... It is, moreover, quite clear that nothing in the Bible would have categorically precluded homosexual relations among early Christians. In spite of misleading English translations which may imply the contrary, the word "homosexual" does not occur in the Bible: no extant text or manuscript, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic, contains such a word. In fact none of these languages ever contained a word corresponding to the English "homosexual", nor did any languages have such a term before the late nineteenth century. Neither Hebrew nor Arabic has such a word today, nor does modern Greek, except as they coin words by analogy with the psuedo-Latin 'homosexual'. There are of course ways to get around the lack of a specific word in a language, and an action may be condemned without being named, but it is doubtful in this particular case whether the concept of homosexual behavior as a class existed at all."
(Will I find all this really interesting. I'm fascinated about how history got us from there (300 B.C.E.) -- ancient Greek, Roman and Jewish attitudes toward male-to-male sexuality -- to here (2009 C.E.)
I'm leafing through Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Gay People in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century"). -- Leafing through. I wouldn't say I'm formally reading it as the text is dense and scholarly (400+ pages), annotated with hundreds of footnotes.
I've always been fascinated with (and, literally, oppressed by) the third Book of the Old Testament, Leviticus. As you know, this is a book of laws - dietary laws, cleanliness codes, priestly codes - which contains the English translation "Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination.." {18:22}
----------
Boswell writes, "The Hebrew word, 'toevah', here translated 'abomination', does not usually signify something intrinsically evil, like rape or theft (discussed elsewhere in Leviticus), but something which is ritually unclean for Jews, like eating pork or engaging in intercourse during menstruation, both of which are prohibited in these same chapters. It is used throughout the Old Testament to designate those Jewish sins which involve ethnic contamination or idolatry and very frequently occurs as part of the stock phrase 'toevah-ha-goyim', 'the uncleanliness of the Gentiles'".
(Will
Is it possible that the jews considered homosexuality simply "unclean" in the same sense that eating pork or shellfish, or cutting facial hair, or not getting circumcised was considered "unclean"? The whole idea of translations, and how (ancient) jewish texts were translated into (ancient) greek, which might not have had social customs nor sometimes even words approximating the jewish cults --- and then to have these tranlations and approximations then re-translated every step of the way, from the early christians on, from ancient languages into medieval languages (Middle English) -- until we arrive at a word - which has already been translated and re-translated, through the prism of differing cultures - to mean "abomination". Boswell writes, " There are three passages in the writings of Paul which have been supposed to deal with homosexual relations. Two words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and one in 1 Tmothy 1:10 have been taken at least since the early twentieth century to indicate that "homosexuals" will be excluded from the kingdom of heaven. The first of the two, "------", {a greek word which I cannot reproduce on this laptop!}, basically 'soft', is an extremely common Greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament with the meaning 'sick', and in patristic writings with senses as varied as 'liquid', 'cowardly', 'refined', 'weak-willed', 'delicate', 'gentle', and 'debauched'. In a specifically moral context it very frequently means 'licentious', 'loose', or 'wanting self-control'. At a broad level, it might be translated as either 'unrestrained', or 'wanton', but to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay people is wholly gratuitous. The word is never used in Greek to designate gay people as a group or even in reference to homosexual acts generically, and it often occurs in writings contemporary with the Pauline epistles in reference to heterosexual persons or activities.
What is more to the point, the unanimous tradition of the church through the Reformation, and of Catholicism until well into the twentieth century, has been that this word applied to masturbation. This was the interpretation not only of the native Greek speakers in the early Middle Ages but of the very theologians who most contributed to the stigmatization of homosexuality. No new textual data effected the twentieth-century change in translation of this word: only a shift in popular morality. Since few people any longer regard masturbation as the sort of activity which would preclude entrance to heaven, the condemnation has simply been transferred to a group still so widely despised that their exclusion does not trouble translators or theologians."
(Will
I wonder what events transpired in the 1800's to necessitate the formation of the word (and, therefore, class of people) "homosexual"? Why was this word necessary in 1890, say, but not in 1350?One last from John Boswell, "... It is, moreover, quite clear that nothing in the Bible would have categorically precluded homosexual relations among early Christians. In spite of misleading English translations which may imply the contrary, the word "homosexual" does not occur in the Bible: no extant text or manuscript, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic, contains such a word. In fact none of these languages ever contained a word corresponding to the English "homosexual", nor did any languages have such a term before the late nineteenth century. Neither Hebrew nor Arabic has such a word today, nor does modern Greek, except as they coin words by analogy with the psuedo-Latin 'homosexual'. There are of course ways to get around the lack of a specific word in a language, and an action may be condemned without being named, but it is doubtful in this particular case whether the concept of homosexual behavior as a class existed at all."
(Will
I find all this really interesting. I'm fascinated about how history got us from there (300 B.C.E.) -- ancient Greek, Roman and Jewish attitudes toward male-to-male sexuality -- to here (2009 C.E.) 
Bbucko
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Posts
- 7,227
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 375
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Sunny SoFla
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
This is an excellent book. I highly recommend that anyone looking to understand pre-modern same-sex norms in Europe read it.
D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse
Experimental Member
also, jason:
Like I said, I'm just beginning Boswell's book and thumbing through it's contents.
But take a look at this blurb-review on the cover page, from the New York Review of Books:
"Chistianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality is one ot the most critical and probing studies yet to appear. For Mr. Boswell has emerged with an interpretation which looks distinctly new. His argument is that intolerance of homosexuality was not an essential feature of Christianity itself, but only became the dominant attitude after twelve hundred years of Church history... Mr. Boswell's scholarly and painstaking analysis will bring academic respectability to what has hitherto been regarded as a faintly murky subject. It may even do something to foster more tolerant attitudes" .... Keith Thomas, New York Review of Books
I think Boswell's premise is that it was the very nature of changing sexuals mores and the mis-translations of the words themselves that led the church to adopt hard, fixed stances on "sodomy", on "homosexuality" (stances which were based on living with years and years of the mistranslated word).
The Hebrew word "kadash", Boswell says, literally means "hallowed" or "sacred", refering to prositutes in pagan temples -- somehow, this word got translated as "effeminati" and later, as "sodomy". ---- Boswell writes, "Mistranslations of this word began very early. The Jewish scholars who effected the Septuagint translation into Greek in the third and second centuries B.C. apparently had considerable difficulty in rendering 'kadash' in Greek: they employed no fewer than six different terms to translate the one Hebrew word. The uncertainty of the Jewish translators themselves is further reflected in the imprecision of many of the Greek words they chose and the fact that in at least one case they misrepresented the gender of the Hebrew."
--------------------
I think Boswell's theory is: with the accumulation of translations (and mistranslations).... until by the 11th or 12th century we have the word "sodomy".... Words themselves change attitudes. In the 1200's or 1300's, Church attitudes began to officially change (congeal) regarding homosexual acts all based upon mistranslations of original texts.
Like I said, I'm just beginning Boswell's book and thumbing through it's contents.
But take a look at this blurb-review on the cover page, from the New York Review of Books:
"Chistianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality is one ot the most critical and probing studies yet to appear. For Mr. Boswell has emerged with an interpretation which looks distinctly new. His argument is that intolerance of homosexuality was not an essential feature of Christianity itself, but only became the dominant attitude after twelve hundred years of Church history... Mr. Boswell's scholarly and painstaking analysis will bring academic respectability to what has hitherto been regarded as a faintly murky subject. It may even do something to foster more tolerant attitudes" .... Keith Thomas, New York Review of Books
I think Boswell's premise is that it was the very nature of changing sexuals mores and the mis-translations of the words themselves that led the church to adopt hard, fixed stances on "sodomy", on "homosexuality" (stances which were based on living with years and years of the mistranslated word).
The Hebrew word "kadash", Boswell says, literally means "hallowed" or "sacred", refering to prositutes in pagan temples -- somehow, this word got translated as "effeminati" and later, as "sodomy". ---- Boswell writes, "Mistranslations of this word began very early. The Jewish scholars who effected the Septuagint translation into Greek in the third and second centuries B.C. apparently had considerable difficulty in rendering 'kadash' in Greek: they employed no fewer than six different terms to translate the one Hebrew word. The uncertainty of the Jewish translators themselves is further reflected in the imprecision of many of the Greek words they chose and the fact that in at least one case they misrepresented the gender of the Hebrew."
--------------------
I think Boswell's theory is: with the accumulation of translations (and mistranslations).... until by the 11th or 12th century we have the word "sodomy".... Words themselves change attitudes. In the 1200's or 1300's, Church attitudes began to officially change (congeal) regarding homosexual acts all based upon mistranslations of original texts.
nudeyorker
Legendary Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Posts
- 22,724
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1,348
- Points
- 208
- Location
- NYC/Honolulu
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
There has been some very interesting viewpoints and conversation in this thread, I've learned a great deal. But I regret to say that the only thing I would be interested in discussing with the Pope would be that he is indeed Catholic and whether bears shit in the woods.
I had a lovely detailed reply eaten by the back button which took the whole page back rather than just the cursor. I'll re-write again in a bit.
I would ask the Poop why, if the sacrifice of Christ represents a new covenant that sweeps away all the old covenants, that this one supposed prohibition against homosexuality remains?
B_Jennuine73
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2007
- Posts
- 1,604
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 82
- Points
- 133
- Location
- Windsor, Ontario
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Gender
- Female
I wouldn't let him speak. I'd just grab him by the pointy hat and shove his face in my pussy. The only thing I want to hear from him is mfffffffph .
whatireallywant
Sexy Member
I would prefer to stay away from controversial issues, since I'm a pro-choice, pro-gay feminist who isn't Catholic and never has been. (Plus I hate to argue over said controversial issues...)
However, I WOULD ask him if the Popemobile is anything like the Batmobile! Does it have cool gadgets, like maybe it shoots out holy water to "get" the bad guys?! :biggrin1:
However, I WOULD ask him if the Popemobile is anything like the Batmobile! Does it have cool gadgets, like maybe it shoots out holy water to "get" the bad guys?! :biggrin1:
The Kadeheshah business is a bit odd to us.
Throughout the near east, there were prostitutes of both sexes employed by temples. A person might want the favor of a certain god or goddess and pay the temple prostitute to offer his or her sexual favors in the name of that deity. This was very common and in the days of when Jews were in a minority, many Jews took advantage of these sorts of services. But to use a temple prostitute was to, in effect, worship a god other than Yaweh because the act of copulation with a temple prostitute was worship of that god.
The male prostitutes were, sometimes at least, eunuchs. They dressed and behaved as women did, hosting male customers in much the way women did. They had an unsavory reputation and were the butt of many jokes.
There are two words in Hebrew for prostitute. Kadeshah were temple prostitutes, zonah were ordinary brothel or street prostitutes. The original texts refer to the kadeshah exclusively. They tell men not behave as kadeshah (castrate themselves or be the passive partner in sex), nor to hire them. The reason is fairly obvious. Jews are forbidden to modify their bodies and they were are not permitted to worship other gods.
Even God himself didn't seem to offended by the waywardness of his people. Hosea 4:14:
Throughout the near east, there were prostitutes of both sexes employed by temples. A person might want the favor of a certain god or goddess and pay the temple prostitute to offer his or her sexual favors in the name of that deity. This was very common and in the days of when Jews were in a minority, many Jews took advantage of these sorts of services. But to use a temple prostitute was to, in effect, worship a god other than Yaweh because the act of copulation with a temple prostitute was worship of that god.
The male prostitutes were, sometimes at least, eunuchs. They dressed and behaved as women did, hosting male customers in much the way women did. They had an unsavory reputation and were the butt of many jokes.
There are two words in Hebrew for prostitute. Kadeshah were temple prostitutes, zonah were ordinary brothel or street prostitutes. The original texts refer to the kadeshah exclusively. They tell men not behave as kadeshah (castrate themselves or be the passive partner in sex), nor to hire them. The reason is fairly obvious. Jews are forbidden to modify their bodies and they were are not permitted to worship other gods.
Even God himself didn't seem to offended by the waywardness of his people. Hosea 4:14:
I will not punish your daughters when they act like a zonah
Or your brides when they commit adultery,
For the men themselves go with zonaot
And offer sacrifices with kedeshot.
Or your brides when they commit adultery,
For the men themselves go with zonaot
And offer sacrifices with kedeshot.
