I have two items for my write-up today on John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.
1.
Boswell argues that Roman society and early Christianity did not have
much of a problem with homosexuality. When Rome became more
authoritarian and the Roman empire became more rural due to the collapse
of urban areas, which was a result (at least in part) of barbarian
invasions, homosexuality became more stigmatized. (Remember that
Boswell sees a connection between intolerance against homosexuality and
rural areas, as well as authoritarianism.) Christian asceticism also
played a role in generating opposition to homosexuality, for the view
that sex was for procreation and that sexual pleasure was bad tended to
marginalize homosexual sex, which did not result in procreation. But,
according to Boswell, while the early Middle Ages was a time when
homosexuality was looked down upon, it was considered to be a mere
peccadillo, not a serious sin. People (especially people in elites) had
homosexual relationships without suffering at the hands of society. In
the eleventh century, Boswell argues, urbanization accompanied
increasing openness about homosexuality, as gay literature reappeared
and gays attained cultural influence.
The late twelfth century,
however, was a time when intolerance against homosexuality proliferated,
according to Boswell. This coincided with authoritarianism, as people
in charge sought to clamp down on what was considered to be different
and unusual. The Inquisition attempted to stamp out heretics, and
Christians fought the Crusades against Muslims (and Christians talked
about homosexual activity among Muslims to portray the Muslims in a bad
light). Ironically, this coincided with increasing urbanization, and so
Boswell highlights this development as an exception to the principle
that rural areas are more intolerant towards homosexuality than are
urban areas. Boswell also talks about Thomas Aquinas, who
treats homosexuality as natural (and thus understandable) for certain
people, and yet takes a bold stance against homosexuality due to the
anti-homosexual sentiment of his time.
This is Boswell's overall argument. What do I think of it? On
a positive note, I think that Boswell does well to highlight the
periods of tolerance towards homosexuality, such as the times when there
was no law against it. On a negative note, however, there were times
when I wondered if things were more complex than Boswell's narrative
suggests. Whereas Boswell argues that early Christianity did
not have much of a problem with homosexuality, information that he
presents in Appendix 1 appears to suggest the contrary, as Boswell
highlights that elements of early Judaism and such Christians as Tatian
presented homosexuality in a negative light. Moreover,
intolerance against the other was a feature of Christianity long before
the twelfth century, for Jews were criticized by Christians since
Christianity's early days, and there were long efforts to clarify
orthodoxy and to stamp out heretics. (Boswell does well to state on
page 269, though, that the early Middle Ages was a time when Catholics,
Donatists, and Manicheans lived together in peace.) Moreover, I
wish that Boswell offered more speculation about the reasons that
Christianity took an authoritarian turn in the twelfth century.
2.
An argument that defenders of homosexuality make today is that
homosexuality exists within the animal kingdom, and thus it is natural.
Because of the prominence of this argument, I would be remiss not to
talk about Boswell's discussion of the role of the animal kingdom in
debates concerning homosexuality.
First, on pages 12-13,
Boswell is arguing against the claim that homosexuality is unnatural
because it is not in the animal kingdom. Boswell notes that homosexual
behavior is present in the animal kingdom, and that this has been
noticed since the time of Aristotle. But Boswell does not
think that homosexuality occurring only among human beings would make it
unnatural. After all, only human beings write, and writing is not
stigmatized!
Second, Boswell observes an inconsistency when it
comes to Christians looking to the animal kingdom to determine what is
natural. For centuries, Christians have appealed to the animal
kingdom to stigmatize homosexuality or to promote Christian sexual
morality, but they have also noticed that animals engage in behavior of
which they disapprove: there is incest and promiscuity within
the animal kingdom, for example. (Moreover, within early Christianity, there was one
view that the food laws of Leviticus 11 were based in part on what
animals were sexually moral and what animals were sexually immoral: the sexually moral animals were permitted for eating, but not the sexually immoral
ones.) And so there is tension within Christianity: trends
within it have wanted for the animal kingdom to illustrate what is moral
and natural, and yet there are animals who do things of which
Christians have disapproved.