 "Great Book for Same-sex couples planning a ceremony!" | 2008-03-19 |
| - Reviewed By User: AX0KI0GQ4LY1A |
| This book disputes the assertion that marriage is only meant to be between a man and a woman. Originally, heterosexual marriage was mostly arranged by families for money and power and it was same-sex marriage (sanctioned by the church) that was considered for the true love of the other person. Ancient texts of same-sex unions are included and are a great addition to any modern ceremony! |
| |
 "In search of a word" | 2007-09-01 |
| - Reviewed By pharmagenesis |
This book illustrates the importance of proper words for the proper functioning of society. It also brings to mind the raging modern debate about the word "marriage:" Those who want to define it to also mean the sanction of homosexual unions and those who oppose that particular use of the word.
Past linguistic history suggests a possible end to this debate (presently in an impasse) by creating a neologism for same-sex unions. I propose, for whatever it is worth, the word "parriage." It is remarkably close to "marriage" and it strongly suggests pairing. It may well satisfy those who seek social change without antagonizing the feelings of those who want to continue to use the word "marriage" in its traditional sense. After all, while the past has certainly a claim on the present and even the future, it cannot prevent social progress. |
| |
| "Of Boswell, Timidity and Denial anent History," | 2006-05-14 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2G61HXPWHKQQ7 |
| Messrs.: Some reviewers' titles, when combined with their texts, are remarkably suggestive of Freudian slips with regard to what is seemingly in their respective minds, and reveal where their thoughts and inhibitions lie. Part of this is exposed by an attendant desire to promote whatever they define as a sort of self-supposed or imagined world standard for an amorphous mythical "tradition," which is to be supposedly found by all a higher authority to the numerous and irrefutable historical facts presented by Boswell. First of all, to-day's concept of Romantic Love was simply unrefined before three hundred or so years ago, and the evolving nature of various associated rituals come down to us from that point. Second, before that evolution (or devolution, depending on your perspective), the so-called traditions of friendship, brotherhood (and all related terms and practices), abduction, and marriage as then and also formally practiced, I would emphasize, together with the near universal association of the masculine or masculinity with male same-sex personages (most often heroes, gods and demi-gods), practices, acts and interests, were all firmly homosexual. Practitioners were unabashedly presentated worldwide as homosexual to a predominant audience for many tens of centuries. Third, homosexual relationships and not heterosexual ones were considered the more natural, ascendant, as well as the norm, and certainly the position actively and overtly promoted by the early and later Church. Most churchmen (and members of their flock), of yester-day and to-day, were exceedingly avid practitioners of homosexual desire, love and friendships. Read for yourself what they reduced to writing, in whatever language you read, for proofs. Why then the anguished surprise, unfounded denials and the sense of disgust, for lack of other expressions, publicly expressed concerning the long, historical, widely known, and accepted practice of marriage between same-sex partners, either as performed and thus sanctified by the Church or via the equally acceptable alternative vehicle, which also bestowed the appellation of marriage on the same-sex relationship, of simply living together as a couple and being recognized as married by your neighbors? This is what Boswell has written in both of his monumental works, as I comprehend him. Some have missed these essentials altogether. This reality, as conveyed and constructed of fact after fact by Boswell, is the complete obverse, quite obviously, of what many uninformed or head-in-the-sand people believe, or are determined to believe, as traditional because of what they have been taught erroneously or might prefer to think for various reasons. But Boswell's revelations and relentless enumeration of historical facts and their elucidation is nonetheless well researched and undeniably true, and his work stands appropriately at the polar opposite to the watered-down and factually ignorant fabrications written by others, which non-facts and mis-apprehensions are further carelessly bandied about by the majority of heterosexualists (or non-Uranians), whether due to willful ignorance, nervous denial, or homophobic hysteria. To compound this egregious situation, during the mid-Nineteenth Century, as Boswell also informs the reader, we began to define individuals in terms of which of two genders they loved, which is itself an absurd shrinking of the spectrum of human practice, something not previously thought remotely to be necessary, or yet considered and conceptualized before then. Homosexualists were first categorized as Uranians until the term homosexual became the standard adjective (it is not properly used as a noun), although the word Gay had been used previously for centuries, for those having similar natural interests. Do not confuse the heterosexual family unit of to-day with the preferred arrangement from antiquity to present because indeed it was not the relational preference until quite recently along the timeline. As well, heterosexual marriage, when and if selected, was almost always performed for dynastic reasons (usually under terms of a contract), but not for love as is asserted to be the cause to-day. There was also a real need to address familial concerns related to procreation and rights of inheritance, which actively drove the contractual parties (the parents or guardians) to ensure that the husband would be the most likely father of any resultant progeny. These particulars are clearly demonstrated by what Boswell (and other historians and intellectuals of current and past note) presents again and again in his book(s). To the ancients and those living up to the Modern Era's fringe, the female was a drone and a minor property item, and mostly recognized as an object of procreative necessity-this is a fact, not a statement of belief or errant misogyny--although not the object of true friendship or love (i.e., intelligent love or bond), and certainly not an equal partner in marriage as our common but incorrect heterosexual currency would now define it. If you should care to read the ancient wits, various Greek and Roman philosophers and like playwrights, up to the beginnings of the Romantic Era, their most acidic and vituperative comments and biting satires would focus upon the cuckold who actually professed to love his mate (notice I do not here use the terms spouse or wife because, once more, as shown by Boswell, there were no official ceremonies, whether secular or religious, then extant, until the Late Middle Ages, which is why most relationships of whatever type were what we to-day define as common law). Since females were universally thought not to possess the intellectual equipment, loyalty or logic requisite for true love or even friendship (the term "friends," when used to described a relationship amongst males, was then more freighted with serious meaning than to-day), and possessed of no capability to form a lasting relationship, they were employed in drudgery, for ready sexual satisfaction, child-bearing and rearing, and housekeeping duties. In the centuries before condoms and the pill, as Boswell relates, young men were more frequently employed for the sexual release of older males (unwanted children were very frequently abandoned or sold), especially when all members of a household were under the sway of the pater familias or dominant male, and where all members were dominated and considered equal prey. In addition, Boswell writes, homosexual love was considered greatly preferable to heterosexual love in all respects, as well as being far more natural, tasteful and enduring. Indeed, most ancient males held the opinion that heterosexual sex was highly disgusting and distasteful, and could cause one to become effeminate, if performed too regularly. At present, due largely to the misanthropy of the so-called feminist revolution and its resultant devolution, already infected and informed by the limpid ideals of Romantic Love that preceded it, true historical tradition with regard to one's affective interests, love and relationships has been literally turned upside down. Neither the ancients, members of the so-called Church, both early and late, nor the Renaissance Man or the scholars of the Enlightenment would recognize or yet understand this massive turn of events in affective interest. Given only one of the many well-documented examples provided by Boswell, it could be easily established that, following the historical precursors of same-sex abduction and adoption, marriage was first practiced amongst those with same-sex affective interests. These facts are directly converse to the inaccurate and deceiving portrayal concocted by to-day's (and yester-day's) ignorant rabble that marriage is of heterosexual origin and that heterosexual relationships have been the exclusive preference of all mankind since time out of mind, regardless of such assertions being proven non-historical and without basis in fact or reality. As with one reviewer here, who wrote when addressing Same-Sex Unions..., "the parallels to marriage are utterly unquestionable," but then backs away and asserts that he "doubt(s) that he (Boswell) establishes that same-sex marriage existed," there is a consistently disappointing and confused attempt to somehow create a distinction without a real difference. That is timidity, intellectual atrophy and denial taken to extremes, which is, sadly, just one example of what can be described as intellectual suicide and the stubborn avoidance of reality whenever and wherever this particular subject matter is broached. I think the singularly tremendous and beneficial scholarship of Boswell and what will be his distinguished legacy require all honest readers, together with his book reviewers, to consider the known (even if uncomfortable) and unavoidable facts, and to not bring their biases, sense of denial, misunderstandings (purposeful or otherwise) and timorousness to bear on this great work of history, or to this subject matter as a whole. |
| |
| "A Work of Surpassing Scholarship" | 2006-02-28 |
| - Reviewed By User: A2TPGW11Y9O6GX |
| Potential Reader: If you are interested in historical realities, fact and not bias, truth, and same-sex studies, then you need to read everything that John Boswell has written in this regard. Here, Boswell peels layer after layer of obscuring biases, prejudices, and untoward mis-apprehension from this long buried subject matter, thereby allowing us to view it clearly without the purposefully applied and clouding gloss from centuries of overt, outright lies about the character, naturalness, myths and legends, and the true history and works of an entire group of always existing human beings, who differ from their fellows only in terms of affective interest. Boswell's book does not promulgate an "agenda," whether perceived curiously as hidden or open, as asserted by and irrespective of the dishonest pretenses of its somehow blissful detractors. Rather, this is a very prescient, professionally competent and scholarly presentation of historical fact. It is tremendously unfortunate that some have chosen the disappointing path of continued denial and purposeful, wanton ignorance, yet even long after its publication. And like all and any other works of the professional historian, portions of such are open to learned, dispassionate debate, but should not be the subject of stubbornly ignorant and myopic diatribes of the most wrong-headed and biased sort, especially when coupled with no factual bases to somehow buttress their failed argument on behalf of the contrary opinion. Some of the reviewers here must be addressing instead some work other than that of Boswell, since what they assert has nothing whatever to do with either the extraordinary breadth and depth of this present work nor with its several and brilliantly interwoven theses. For example, one reviewer's reiteration of a Greek term uncomfortably provides the sense of homophobic panic, and this then is compounded by a wondrously absurd attempt to use a preposterous and nonexistent conflict in interpretation to deconstruct Boswell's entire work, on the simpleminded basis of that reviewer's peculiar use and his uniquely perceived meaning of one word in Greek. The Greek word as suggested does not, obviously was not intended to, and simply could not conceivably bear the entire weight, thematically or otherwise, of Boswell's much broader conception for his quite extensive work, which is the subject of my review. Boswell was wholly conversant, as this book more than clearly demonstrates, in several ancient and modern languages and was also a greatly respected and internationally recognized scholar of renown (a full professor at Yale University) in his own right. I would conjecture that this book's naysayers' supposed credentials or degrees were mail-ordered from some evangelical bible college. As for the unschooled, silly, but too conveniently oft-parroted misconception that asserts as some kind of unassailable fact the totally fanciful, nonhistorical idea of "male friends as only just friends" in ancient through pre-modern times, if one had bothered to read the book past the first fifty pages or so, it would have been learned and such provided with a number of verifiable examples that would inform even the most closed of minds that the concept of male "friends" and "friendship" had a much more significant, certainly romantic, and very serious meaning to males who lived during those historical periods. For some, these attitudes are operative, valid and present to-day. Reviewers also missed large sections of this work that addressed same-sex union ceremonies and, more importantly, those paragraphs abundantly devoted to the clear contemporary meaning of these unions to the actual participants and to their contemporaries. I myself am a Near and Middle Eastern History scholar, and I can attest to Professor Boswell's professional accuracy and correctness with regard to his translations, as well as to his use of the sources and materials he had to hand, and also to the substantiveness of the undoubted in-depth peer reviews that preceded and substantiated each and every part of this book. Boswell's scholarly appreciation for and his very selection and use of the many resources and source materials cited and compiled here, some quite arcane and largely unknown or even those illicitly altered and redacted centuries ago, are a virtual treasure trove of hidden, ignored and bypassed knowledge, even if some of it is general, that we are at long last made aware, having been brought from forgotten depths in to the light to inform. All is presented and conveyed in a style that is as interesting and informative to read as a good novel, or perhaps, for example, the excellent social histories by Barbara Tuchman. Yet 'Same-Sex Union...' is both a serious book for the historian (and even more so for the public at large, if they only will take the opportunity to learn) and moreover an exceedingly necessary work that I, for one, am very pleased was written, especially so by a person with the outstanding credentials Boswell possessed. I am very proud to have this book resident in my bookshelf, it having been read and referenced many times since being acquired. The information concerning Nero and Hadrian and their respective lovers and husbands (Sporus and Antinous), as well as the many so-called paired saints (Serge and Bacchus, etc.), together with the internal mini-histories and fascinating cultural aspects of abduction, adoption and marriage (greatly differing from the practices and rationales employed in our presumably modern society) in the ancient and premodern worlds was, for me, the most intriguing, informative and fascinating. His extra-textual cites, definitions, explications, notes, and appendices are utterly superb, and could not be bettered or more revealing. Surely, it was (and is again) time that someone with the requisite credentials, background, intellect and scholarship, moxie, rectitude, and writing skills, like Boswell, wrote this sort of history (I would definitely say the same for his previous much needed and heralded work: 'Christianity, Social...'). This book is a very densely-packed, highly intellectual and appropriately technical work, so if you like your histories 'light,' I would strongly recommend a sort of 'warm-up' first with other works of like but less intensive nature before tackling it without some preparatory information and knowledge. In my opinion, you, the fortunate reader of this book, will actually derive more from Boswell's work should you be prepared to comprehendingly read and thoroughly understand it--rather than try to get by with only the application of, at best, a pedestrian, provincial background and with a near dearth of requisite knowledge, such as that so embarrassingly exposed and natteringly evinced by some few intellectually challenged and clearly prejudiced exemplars displayed and revealed in a number of preceding reviews. I only wish that I could give this monumentally excellent work by Boswell more than 5-stars! |
| |
 "Worthy of consideration, but..." | 2005-11-21 |
| - Reviewed By User: A25TL0IJQTSFF0 |
The "but" is well expressed in the last two reviews here. The issue revolves around a specific translation question, and it's a debatable one.
Father Kurt's review comes closest to mine. It takes careful reading,and it has some significant problems, but it does present the issues fairly, and many of the objections made in recent reviews are addressed in the book's text. It may well be arguing a debatable proposition, but it is not "intellectual claptrap". Dr. Boswell makes a game effort to argue that his documents are speaking of something more significant than proerty transfers or normal "friendships". It's quite another thing as to whether he succeeds.
Evaluating this book as a historian, I fond myself at a loss for the lingustic skills to make much of a judgement on most of his texts. His argument, if he could maintsin the linguistic argument in the context in which the documents were produced, otherwise is well put. To repeat, it is not "claptrap".
However, there was one exception where I do have some ability to assess one of his documents: an excerpt in Latin from Giraldus Cambriensis' "History and Topography of Ireland".
Dr. Boswell lays out the Latin text, then gives his translation, and then explains his justification for translating it in the way it does. All of which is quite proper. I had a run at the Latin myself, and while, yes, using some standard definitons, you CAN translate it the way he does, it works equally well as a rite for the formal allaince of families or kinship groups. Since the social structure of Ireland at the time was based almost entirely on kinship groups, that's the way scholars of Irish history would translate it, rather than as a form of personal union between two people. Charitably, one might suppose that 12th century Ireland was not familiar ground for him judging from his other work, it wasn't), so while he seems to have misunderstood the context here, I wouldn't say that he got it wrong elsewhere. I did find a factual error in one of his footnotes (there is another modern translation of which he was apparently unaware), although it was the type of slip which happens fairly easily.
Simply for that reason I've given, I would not take this book as more than advancing an ingenious hypothesis, which remains at best unproven. Still, it is worthy of consideration...and as far as scholarly works go, it's pretty readable. That in itself is a virtue! |
| |
 "Tendentious Claptrap from Boswell" | 2005-11-11 |
| - Reviewed By User: A3E2MNM28QW5BZ |
The whole argument of this book revolves around the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the words "adelphopoiesis" and "adelphopoieia". The obvious translation of these words is "brother-making" but Boswell wants us to have none of that. In fact, he often goes to great lengths to bury these words in footnotes and presents them in Greek characters rather than transliterating them for vulgar eyes. The reason for this is that he wishes us to be kindly disposed to his translation of "adelphopoiesis" as "same-sex union" (the English phrase that forms the center of his argument). The obvious translation ("brother-making") would clearly tell against Boswell's tendentious claims. Thus, he does his best to keep the obvious translation out of the reader's mind.
But he can't do this forever. Thus he is pressed to do the following:
1) Argue that "brother-making", the obvious translation, is misleading. He then provides us with page upon page of contorted (but ultimately unconvincing) exegesis to show why this is apparently so.
2) Argue that "homosexual marriage" is an unwarranted and "tendentious interpretation" (his words, not mine) of "adelphopoiesis".
3) Contend that "same-sex union" is the best translation of "adelphopoiesis".
Of course, anyone can see that "same-sex union" is a tendentious generalization as well. "Same-sex" is more abstract and suggestive than the figure "brother"; and "union" is more abstract than the relationship of spiritual brotherhood that is specified by "adelphopoiesis". Making his translation more general allows him to smuggle more meaning into the word.
Also, Boswell (as far as I can recall) fails to note one of the main reasons "brother-making" presents parallels to a marriage ceremony: namely, the transmission of ecclesiastical property to one of the parties. Just as a marriage would stipulate the conditions under which property would be transferred from a husband to a wife upon his death, so too would "brother-making" stipulate to whom and under what conditions ecclesiastical property would be transferred upon the death of one of the "brothers". "Brother-making" would appear from one point of view as a succession ritual that establishes the claim of the younger "brother" to the duties and ecclesiastical property of the elder "brother" following the latter's death. Their relation is thus more like that of father and son than that of husband and wife.
Perhaps the most distressing thing about this book is that, rather than using the canons of academic reason to support his contentions, Boswell instead resorts mostly to a rhetoric of scholarly authority. The tricky parts of his interpretation are couched in an academic style that subsitutes pedantic framing for honest argument. Rather than using reason to establish his thesis, he assumes the truth of his thesis and constructs various tendentious standpoints from which one can better view his preordained "truth". This is not only distressing but insulting. It's as if he thinks the reader can't see what he's really doing and will simply be swayed by the stylistic apparatus he employs to advance his claims to academic authority.
This book is a disgrace. I would have given it zero stars if it weren't for the interesting bibliographical information it contains. I did find some gold in this dross -- but it had, alas, nothing to do with Boswell's thesis.
Finally, as I noted above, this book does not provide support for the claim that the Orthodox Church contained rites for "gay marriage". Boswell explicitly states that translating "adelphopoiesis" as "gay marriage" is a "tendentious interpretation". A lot of readers seem to have missed this point.
|
| |
| "Must read for anyone talking about "traditional" marriage" | 2004-04-18 |
| - Reviewed By penny0314 |
| The other reviews cover most of the issues with this book admirably. One could have appropriately, but less titilatingly, retitled the book "Unions in Pre-Modern Europe", since his study was fairly balanced between two-sex and same-sex unions. It is certainly an eye-opener for those of the "traditional" marriage hue and cry. "Traditional" marriage as we see it today was unknown until the late middle ages, although that sort of union among same-sex couples was known from the earliest. The church did not recognize marriage as a sacrament until about 800 years ago. Those today who speak of traditional marriage need to read their history to know whereof they speak. I found his writing immensely readable and enjoyable. Although I have not yet read his first work, it is certainly now on my list. |
| |
| "Thought provoking enlightenment" | 2004-04-15 |
| - Reviewed By Anonymous |
| I have now read this book twice and both times I find myself looking at great scholarship. However, there is something missing. Boswell elucidates marriage history extraordinarily well, and his citations to same-sex unions are remarkable. There was no silver bullet that clearly and convincingly ties the same sex ceremonies he cites to the kind of same-sex relationship that parallels heterosexual marriage. We must remember that the concepts of homosexual and heterosexual did not exist in pre-modern Europe. They are a product of hte 19th century. Nonetheless, Bosell's scholarship is a delight to read, and raises excellent questions about our past. |
| |
 "A fantastic misreading of history" | 2004-02-18 |
| - Reviewed By Anonymous |
| I find it amazing that so many readers think that Boswell, may he rest in peace, has discovered that in fact the early church actually blessed same sex unions. THis book, combined with his "Christianity, Social Tolorance, and Homosexuality", has done more to promote the legitimacy of homosexuality in theological terms than any other other, with Spong's half-baked attempts coming in a close second. Please understand that I am not trying to bash gays or gays who are living the CHristian life. It is only that this sort of book misrepresents that tradition of the Church- east and west. Read Boswell, by all means. But also read critiques. One very useful and kind critique is found in Marva Dawn's "Sexual Character" which goes into great detail about the scholarship of Boswell. I must say that the question is so very important to the Church and society and the Church should not be vindictive or loose withthe facts- but neither should those who disagree with the Tradition. THere are several thorough reviews of Boswell's books at First THings so I won't repeat what is written there. However, I would suggest that we all need to be careful in reading into texts and history what would make us feel better about ourselves. Orthodox and heretic both do this, and it is exactly why we need to listen carefully to all sides as dispassionately as possible. |
| |
| "Wonderful Scholarship" | 2002-12-20 |
| - Reviewed By emprkarr |
| I couldn't disagree more with claims that this book is dry. As a student planning to become a historian focusing on homosexual history (one that is interested in the pre-1869 "gay identities" that social constructionists like to downplay), I thought this book was insightful, interesting, and an easy read. The field of gay history needs more scholars like the late Boswell. |
| |
International Available
