HISTSEX ARCHIVES: MAY 1999
© Lesley Hall and list contributors
From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Social constructionism and homosexualitiy and Michelangelo
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 13:29:24 +0100
Bob says:
< "I cringe when my students refer to Michelangelo as a
<"homosexual." Why? Because describing someone in the sixteenth century as
<"gay, "homosexual," "finocchio," "queer," "a faggot," "having same-sex
<desire," the list goes on however you choose to describe it, does not have
<the same "meaning"/connotation as it does to contemporary audiences."
I take it, then, that Bob would *not* cringe if his students used the
proper 16th century Italian term and called Michelangelo a sodomite
rather than a homosexual. Personally, I'm quite happy calling him
queer, as this term bridges the gap between historical periods. Perhaps
the best solution is to avoid specific terms and just say what we mean:
Michelangelo fucked boys rather than girls. Or would that make Bob
cringe as well?
When the queer art historian John Addington Symonds was granted access
to the Buonarroti family archives in Florence in 1863 he discovered a
note written in the margin of the manuscript poems by Michelangelo's
grand-nephew
(called Michelangelo the Younger) saying that the poems must not be
published in their original form because they expressed "amor . . .
virile", literally "masculine love", which is really just a Renaissance
polite euphemism for *paiderastia*, better translated today as
"male/male desire". Symonds thus was able to make public the fact that
when Michelangelo the Younger prepared his great-uncle's poetry for
posthumous publication in 1623 he had changed all of the masculine
pronouns in the love poems to feminine pronouns, thus ensuring that any
sentiments in the poems that could not be interpreted as being merely
platonic would at least be interpreted as being what he considered
normal, i.e. what we today call heterosexual. Michelangelo the
Younger's action proves that the hetero/homo divide was not only
relevant, but important for him. Many of Michelangelo's contemporaries
considered him to be "different" (not a hundred miles away in meaning
from the modern term "deviant"), and a queer contemporary, Varchi,
recognized his work as being queer.
Michelangelo's contemporaries Leonardo da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli,
Benvenuto Cellini and Giovanni Antonio Bazzi (Il Sodoma) were publicly
charged with sodomy (Leonardo was even imprisoned for two months), and
Michelangelo, like them, was offered sexual "services" by the *ragazzi*
who worked as apprentices in the art studios. Whether his love-gift to
Tommaso Cavalieri of a drawing of the rape of Ganymede is an emblem of
neoplatonic sublimation or an invitation to bed, I don't know, but
there cannot be too much doubt that Michelangelo had sexual relations
with his model Gherardo Perini and his assistant Febo di Poggio. I
won't say that all of this contextual evidence (plus the evidence of
our perception of the apparently homoerotic content of the "ignudi* in
the Sistine Chapel and *The Dying Captive* and various other sculpture;
plus the poetic theme of struggling to come to terms with himself, in
the context of guilt of some sort; plus the fact that he was an
inveterate bachelor and non-womanizer), amounts to proof positive that
Michelangelo fucked men. But I will say that Michelangelo the Younger's
censorship provides as much evidence as is needed to prove that
Michelangelo's sonnets were *perceived during his own time as the
product of a man who fucked men (i.e. a homosexual)*, and the charge of
anachronism completely falls apart. The inclusion of Michelangelo's
Sonnets in _The Penguin Book of *Homosexual* Verse_ is completely
justified.
To turn from the narrow issue of Michelangelo to the broader context of
language, I would argue that "homosexual" or "queer" are perfectly
accurate and meaningful equivalents for the 15th-century and 16th-
century Italian terms for "inveterate sodomite", "infamous sodomite"
and "notorious sodomite", whose existence is well documented by Michael
Rocke in _Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in
Renaissance Florence_. Although Rocke is a constructionist and contends
that "homosexuals" did not constitute a sexually distinct minority with
regard to the large majority of men who engaged in homosexual
relations, even he nevertheless admits that the category of "inveterate
sodmites" did in fact constitute a "distinct minority" (Rocke's phrase
for them: an important concession) of older sodomites who were so
dedicated to exclusive homosexuality throughout their lives (and who lived
and worked in sodomitical neighbourhoods and frequented sodomitical
cruising grounds) that it can be said to have formed an important
factor in their self-identity.
If Bob's students do indeed misuse the term homosexual to mean flaming
queen, then I would say that although Michelangelo had little in common with
Quentin Crisp, the suggestion that queens existed in 16th century Italy
is not as anachronistic as Bob seems to think. The life of one
"inveterate sodomite" who went by the female nickname "Mea" is well
documented by Rocke (this particular man performed oral as well as anal
intercourse, and he persuaded other men to sodomize him, which demonstrates
a mutuality of pleasure rather than a fixed sex-role pattern). Rocke also
documents the 15th/16th century Italian
disgust at young men who went about the streets dressed flamboyantly
and flaunting their attractions like shameless women, and the charge of
"effeminacy" that was often laid against younger sodomites.
In sum, most of the related concepts that we associate with the modern term
homosexual were also held in 15th and 16th century Italy.
--
Rictor Norton
mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/rcnorton.htm
___________________________________________________________________
From: MillerJimE@aol.com
Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 01:42:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Michelangelo
But let's not forget emotional loading. In our culture (here in
America at least) the terms "artist", "Italian", "rose" and "tulip" are
relatively neutral terms. Most non-Italians and non-artists I know would not
be insulted if they were mistaken for an artist or an Italian. And wild
roses grow around here. So it is easy for us to be academic or casual when
we use, misuse and even abuse these terms. BUT, homosexual is such a heavily
loaded emotional term that most people cannot distance themselves when the
term is used. Most non-homosexuals (and closeted homosexuals) show signs of
needing to demonstrate their heterosexuality should that be questioned in any
way. Most homosexuals are very sensitive (even hypersensitive) about what
terms are used, and we will debate each other endlessly on which terms are
acceptable and how precisely they should be understood and used.
And, of course, level-headed academics are . . . well, they are just
as wigged-out by terms that touch on alternative sexualities. Which is why
this debate goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on.
Personally, I find I learn more about the participants in these
discussions than I do about the historical data. Though I must say I have
gained some important historical data on this newsgroup. Special thanks to
Greg Reeder for pointing out and supplying the deleted bit from Lichtheim's
Ancient Egyptian Literature. It's something I can really use.
Jim Miller
In a message dated 04/30/1999 9:23:36 AM Central Daylight Time,
giovanni.dallorto@iol.it writes:
<<
Well, even "artist" had NOT the same connotation as today. If you teach Art
History, as I assume, you know better than I do that Romantic thought
changed the role and the social place of the artist. As post-Romantics, we
don't look at art as Michelangelo's contemporaries did. An "artist" was in
16th century something very different than today.
And even "Italian" did not mean the same thing as today: Metternich in 19th
century said "Italy is nothing but a geographical expression", and in some
way he was right. In 16th century, Italy was not a nation, whereas nowadays
it is. . . .
15th century tulips and roses where *very very*
different from those we call today "roses" and "tulips", as you sure know.
Yet gardeners do not get confused: they simply speak about "ancient
roses"...
It's that simple!
>>
> ___________________________________________________________________
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 11:48:43 +0200
From: "Giovanni Dall'Orto" <giovanni.dallorto@iol.it>
Subject: Re: Michelangelo loves Abe Lincoln
In 17.27 30/04/99 +0000, Mark Brustman wrote:
>I think one major issue of misunderstanding may be that the word
homosexual is
>used by some people to denote a person with same-sex desires or sexual
>experiences -- as though that alone were sufficient to define the type --
and by
>other people to denote a person who avoids the opposite sex and only has
>experience with or desires their own sex. And the point is that in
>Michelangelo's time, there was no way to differentiate a type of man solely
>based on his same-sex desires or experiences. A lot of men might have
expressed
>same-sex desires and had same-sex experiences in Michelangelo's day, not
because
>they were different from other men in some ontological way, but simply
because
>they chose to do so (in violation of church law). Case in point: Abraham
Lincoln
>(not a contemporary of Michelangelo I know) had a love affair with a man
early
>in his life, expressed very tenderly in letters to the other man, but it
would
>be ludicrous to call him a homosexual because of that. Yet Larry Kramer,
not one
>to shy away from ludicrousness, is trying to promote Abe Lincoln as "Our Gay
>President" on that basis. Our gay president was probably Lincoln's immediate
>predecessor James Buchanan, who was never married and brought in a man to
serve
>as First Lady.
>
>What has made homosexual men recognizable in distinction from ordinary
men, has
>always -- until this century in AngloSaxia -- been their lack of desire
for or
>experience with women. This is what needs to be demonstrated for
Michelangelo in
>order to identify him as "a homosexual."
>
>For homosexual women, particularly butch dykes, the case has been different,
>because throughout history any woman with an aggressive demeanor who pursues
>other women sexually is likely to be called unfeminine, regardless of whether
>she enjoys sex with men or not. Usually she is seen as a would-be competitor
>against men for the attentions of more "feminine"-acting women. However,
these
>"feminine"-acting women would not be differentiated from the majority of
women
>just because of having homosexual desires or experiences, either.
>
>Mark Brustman
===
Dear Mark,
excuse me, but who said or demonstrated that "the point is that in
Michelangelo's time, there was no way to differentiate a type of man solely
based on his same-sex desires or experiences"?. Actually, in my first
posting I quoted a series of documents that proved that this is not true: a
way there was. Although a different one from ours, because history _never_
repeats itself twice.
I won't repeat the list of documents, now, otherwise everybody would get
bored, but if you did not save a copy of the message, then I can send it
again to your private address.
In my point of view your mail is risking to do what in philosophy is
called a "petitio principii", i.e. using what is to be demonstrated as an
evidence for the fact that what is to be demonstrated is true.
What we are discussing is in fact whether it is true or not that "in
pre-modern time, there was no way to differentiate a type of man solely
based on his same-sex desires or experiences", yet you use the very thing
which is to be demonstrated as your main evidence of the fact that it is true.
I'm afraid I cannot accept this way of reasoning. The fact that our
ancestors where not capable of "differentiating" should be demonstrated by
means of a thorough examination of ancient documents and thought. And you
will be surely surprised in learning that such a task has never been
accomplished along these 15 years or so. Quite the other way: wherever an
attempt has been made, the result has gone the other way, both in the field
of gay studies and in the field of lesbian studies (I am currently reading
"Passions between women" by Emma Donoghue and I pleasantly surprised in
finding that she too reaches conclusion that clash with commonly held
Social constructionist axioms and disprove them).
As for Kramer, you are sure right in asking to be careful before behaving
as he is doing. I would not be enthused should I have to work on such a
scant evidence.
However, Kramer is not a historian and he does not claim he is (well, as
far as I know): he is a gay/Aids activist who is (ab)USING history for his
political agenda.
Which is what is being done in every second: history is a political
doctrine, not a science. See what's happening in these days in Serbia and
Kosovo, and what use is being done of history and "historical" rights.
I am not scandalised. Only, I'd rather use history for my political agenda
than being used myself as a historian for somebody else's political
agenda... as gay historians have been doing for generations, always backing
the strictest heterosexist and homophobic point of view.
In sum, I agree with you that there is too little evidence to talk about a
gay president of yours - as for myself, I would never use such a political
term as "gay" while talking about the past - _pace_ Boswell.
This said, the reasoning should go the other way anyway: after I
demonstrated - which is easy to do, since he did not care about leaving
evidence everywhere - that Michelangelo loved men, and that his
contemporaries called him a sodomite (yes they did), then it is no longer
up to me to demonstrate that he _only_ loved men, as you ask me to do: it
is up to those who disagree with me to prove he actually loved women, and
not just for a question of cover-up.
In fact, there can't be a methodology for gay and another one for straight
scholars. Assuming everybody is straight unless the opposite is
demonstrated, is not a careful methodology: it is nothing but the commonly
held societal point of view about "queer" people.
Best wishes.
Giovanni Dall'Orto - Milano (Italy)
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 00:57:53 +0200
From: "Giovanni Dall'Orto" <giovanni.dallorto@iol.it>
Subject: Just a question
For the list's adm: is there no way to instruct majordomo to send any
answers straight to the list, when one makes a "reply", instead than to the
person one is replying to? I'm privately receving answers to the postings
I'm senidng to the lst, and I always have to remind to change the address
whenever I myself reply.
Can this (although very minor) flaw be corrcted?
Thanks.
Giovanni Dall'Orto
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 04 May 1999 02:19:55 +0200
From: "Giovanni Dall'Orto" <giovanni.dallorto@iol.it>
Subject: Michelangelo + historical contructionism
In 01.42 01/05/99 Jim E. Miller wrote:
>
> But let's not forget emotional loading. In our culture (here in America
at least) the terms "artist", "Italian", "rose" and "tulip" are relatively
neutral terms. Most non-Italians and non-artists I know would not be
insulted if they were mistaken for an artist or an Italian. And wild roses
grow around here. So it is easy for us to be academic or casual when we
use, misuse and even abuse these terms. BUT, homosexual is such a heavily
loaded emotional term that most people cannot distance themselves when the
term is used. Most non-homosexuals (and closeted homosexuals) show signs
of needing to demonstrate their heterosexuality should that be questioned
in any way. Most homosexuals are very sensitive (even hypersensitive)
about what terms are used, and we will debate each other endlessly on which
terms are acceptable and how precisely they should be understood and used.
> And, of course, level-headed academics are . . . well, they are just as
wigged-out by terms that touch on alternative sexualities. Which is why
this debate goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on.
> Personally, I find I learn more about the participants in these
discussions than I do about the historical data. Though I must say I have
gained some important historical data on this newsgroup. Special thanks to
Greg Reeder for pointing out and supplying the deleted bit from Lichtheim's
Ancient Egyptian Literature. It's something I can really use.
>Jim Miller
WOW! What an interesting question you are raising!
To reply you I have to somehow part from the topic of sexuality, but if
people who subscribed this list are as interested in history as much as
they are in sexuality, I hope they'll forgive me.
Or they'll try to, at least.. :)
My point is simple: there are no "neutral" terms - unless we agree they
are so. In fact there is no such a thing as a "wild" rose.
A "rose" is - always - a social and a cultural construction.
What WE (me and you) call "a rose" came into being only three centuries
ago, mostly through hybridisation (I hope I got the right word :)) between
European and Chinese "roses".
Before that period, the typical rose was a four-petaled flower. Think of
the coat of arms in the British "war of roses", or on British coins. This
is what a "rose" was in pre-modern time... and I am meaning a "garden"
rose, not a "wild" one.
Furthermore, to our Roman ancestors (well, to MY Roman ancestors ;) ),
roses had just one colour: pink. In Italian, both "pink" and "rose" are
translated as "rosa". And a "pink rose" is a "rosa rosa" :)
Roses were for Roman people quintessentially pink, whereas today we have
pink as well as white, carnation, black, yellow & re... roses.
In Latin a "rose" was translated, 2,500 years ago, as "rosa"; in Italian,
today, a rose is still called "rosa"! The same word, unchanged for 2,500
years, but an incredibly different object. Should a being from Mars land
and should s/he (or "it" J ) see a Roman "rose" and a modern one, s/he
could never guess they are considered as being the same flower.
Yet we do.
(So I wonder once more why we can't do the same thing with
homosexuality!!!!!!).
This is very important to the point I am making. What I am saying is that
different objects can share the same name although they are really
different (such as Roman and modern roses are), whereas the same objet can
have, along centuries, different names, while remaining per se the same
thing, such as roses, rivers, towns, dogs, trees, countries, languages,
landscapes... and, yes, homosexuality as well.
This happens quite for the fact that, contrary to what some subscribers to
this list seem to think, words do not CONTAIN meanings: they merely "poke"
at them, "make sing at them". In Italian, "meaning" is translated as
"significato", coming from Latin "significare", i.e. "to make signs at",
"to poke at". Which makes clear, much better than the English language
does, that words are just labels: they do not CONTAIN essences, as
Constructionism (in my humble opinion) posits.
If you know Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose" best-seller novel (it was
even made into a film), you will be familiar with the poem which gave the
title to the book, beginning with "Stat pristina rosa", "A rose stands at
the beginning", and ending with "nomina nuda tenemus": "we just grasp bare
names".
Words are but labels. They (i.e. Saussure's "signifiants") do not MEAN
anything, apart for what social convention "means". Which does not imply,
however, that things that are meant by words (Saussure's "signifiés") did
not pre-exist words, contrary to what S. C. posits: Earth existed billion
years before human beings gave names to things. As fossils are showing... I
guess.
One more example. My Roman ancestors could not see "white" and "black" as
we do.
They had in fact TWO blacks ("ater" and "niger": i.e. brilliant and opaque
black: Hell to them was ater, not niger) and TWO whites ("candidus" and
"albus", as above).
On the other hand, my Roman ancestors conceived "green" as a hue of blue.
Furthermore, you English-speaking people do not have a word for what in
Italian is "azzurro" (sky-blue) which in your language is but a hue of
blue, whereas in Italian (or in Spanish _ azul, as well in other languages)
is a colour in itself.
Well, when we look at Roman frescoes in Pompeii, trees are still green,
not blue, skies are "azzurro" (not red or pink), and if I watch to a
picture by Turner, the sky is still "azzurro"... although a bit foggy &
rainy, as it can be expected by a British sky. ;)
This shows in a clear way, I guess, that words categorise, and give
meaning and order, to reality, yet reality still "stat pristina", however
we decide to call it.
We cannot do without the socially constructed vision of reality that our
society, our culture, our mentality, our language, taught us to consider as
THE reality. I myself, although I am criticising Social Constructionism, I
am not free myself from the limitations that my language, my mentality, my
native culture, are imposing to me.
The difference is that I do not assume from this fact that I INVENTED
reality with my language, my mentality, my culture. Whereas Anglo-Saxons
are, since they feel they are the yardstick of history and reality.
Which I, being "just" a mere "dago", refuse to acknowledge, of course.
Greetings.
Giovanni Dall'Orto (Milano - Italy)
Post scriptum: the above whole reasoning is, of course, valid (mutatis
mutandis) for homosexuality, and for sexuality in general, in my humble
opinion.
If you can't agree with this statement, why then don't we just go for the
excellent suggestion by Rictor Norton? Michelangelo was no homosexual: he
merely fucked boys in the arse.
I wonder whether this will make any difference to str8 Art historians...
To me it doesn't, but who cares about a poofter Bolshevik Dago's opinion,
after all? ;)
(Don't be upset: I'm just joking... J ).
Giovanni Dall'Orto
___________________________________________________________________
Date: 4 May 1999 10:28:29 -0000
From: Histsex:For historians of sexuality <histsex-owner@listbot.com>
Subject: Re: just a question
Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
In response to this query:
To send a reply to the list, it is necessary to click on the 'reply to
all' option (if your e-mail package has this option). Just clicking on
reply sends it to the individual who originated the message.
I should probably mention this in the welcome message for new subscribers.
Thanks for bringing this up: it is one of a number of little
idiosyncrasies of this listserv.
Lesley Hall
histsex-owner@listbot.com
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Slang
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 20:04:16 +0100
On the continuing, and I think not entirely resolved, question of the sexual
versus non-sexual connotations of 'knock up' in UK, rather than American,
English,
I have certainly come across 'separated by a common tongue' anecdotes (ben
trovato no doubt rather than necessarily a reliable account of anything
which actually happened) in which embarassment is created by UK female
asking US male to 'knock me up in the morning' or UK male offering to 'knock
up' US female likewise.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
From: MillerJimE@aol.com
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 20:46:15 EDT
Subject: Re: Michelangelo + historical contructionism
In a message dated 05/04/1999 5:23:50 AM Central Daylight Time,
giovanni.dallorto@iol.it writes:
<< A "rose" is - always - a social and a cultural construction.
What WE (me and you) call "a rose" came into being only three centuries
ago, mostly through hybridisation (I hope I got the right word :)) between
European and Chinese "roses".
Before that period, the typical rose was a four-petaled flower. Think of
the coat of arms in the British "war of roses", or on British coins. >>
Um, the wild rose has five petals, like most other woody dicots. It
is a close relative of the apple and pear, also five-petaled woody dicots.
Unfortunately for your argument my basic academic training is in biology. In
other words, you are not getting through to me. I happen to believe in the
biological classification system which means I believe in roses even if you
try to lump them with morning glories. The question is not whether the rose
is biologically distinct from the tulip, but rather how distinct (VERY
distinct it turns out, the tulip is a monocot. Morning glories at least are
dicots with five-sided flowers.).
To misquote the poets, "A chrysanthemum is a chrysanthemum is a
chrysanthemum, but by any other name it still won't smell like a rose."
So, to come back to the topic of sexual orientation, if it has a
biological basis (which transcends differing social constructions) the
question is not whether there are distinct sexual orientations, but rather
how they are distinct. Social conditioning does affect expression of sexual
orientation, but it cannot erase or alter the biological orientation as far
as we know. The question is not whether homosexuality is constructed or
essential, but how much of the sexual expression is constructed and how much
is essential. This question may be asked of any time period and any culture
in which biological humans exist.
Jim Miller
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 10:13:45 +0000
From: aquarius@well.com
Subject: Re: Michelangelo + historical contructionism
MillerJimE@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 05/04/1999 5:23:50 AM Central Daylight Time,
> giovanni.dallorto@iol.it writes:
>
> << snip >>
>
> ... my basic academic training is in biology ... So, to come back to the
> topic of sexual orientation, if it has a biological basis (which transcends
> differing social constructions) the question is not whether there are distinct
> sexual orientations, but rather how they are distinct. Social conditioning
> does affect expression of sexual orientation, but it cannot erase or alter the
> biological orientation as far as we know. The question is not whether
> homosexuality is constructed or essential, but how much of the sexual
> expression is constructed and how much is essential. This question may be
> asked of any time period and any culture in which biological humans exist.
> Jim Miller
To which I must interject once again that in very many cultures and time
periods, except notably Christian and post-Christian Europe, you find a separate
category for (frequently gender-variant) men who are not sexually aroused by
women, and in almost as many you also find a separate category for women who are
not turned on by men. It is in this lack of arousal for the opposite sex that
one may seek the biological cause of homosexuality. Being turned on is
obviously, at least in part, a biological process (interactions between the
senses, the nervous system, and particular organs are involved), so how does it
work? And how might it not work with partners of one sex or another?
As for modern Europe, our lack of a separate cultural category for such
biological people has been rectified lately by the rise of the "lesbian and gay"
phenomenon.
(To Giovanni Dall'Orto: "Sodomite" is not a separate category of being any more
than, say, "womanizer." If you don't sodomize, you're not a sodomite. The
Christian and post-Christian system that calls people sodomites does not
categorize people according to their feelings and desires, but according to
their actions. This is why the Christian right calls homosexuality a choice,
because one always chooses one's actions. But you can be gay without ever having
sex at all.)
Mark Brustman
Born Eunuchs: Homosexual Identity in the Ancient World
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 19:28:57 +0100
From: Ianthe <ianthe@duende.demon.co.uk>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?UK_news_on_Roman_boy-love_cup_-_British_Museum_acquires_fo?= =?iso-8859-1?q?r_=A31.8m?=
-- press cutting --
_Loving cup bought by museum for £1.8m [$2.7m]_
Tha Daily Telegraph (national daily, right-wing but
intelligent, broadsheet) - Wednesday _5 May_ 1999
By Nigel Reynolds, Arts Correspondent
[ photo url: http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/99/05/05/
timnwsnws02023.html?2333698 -- place all on one line, no gaps]
THE British Museum has paid £1.8 million for a silver Roman
drinking goblet decorated with explicit homosexual love
scenes.
The 1st century vessel, the museum's most expensive
purchase for well over a decade, was described by museum
experts yesterday as unique. But Dr Robert Anderson,
director of the museum, admitted that if it had been
acquired a few years ago in a less tolerant climate, the
museum would almost certainly have had to keep it locked in
a cupboard.
The museum also admitted that a number of private
benefactors, to whom it had turned for help to buy the
homoerotic goblet, had refused. The purchase, helped by
other less prudish benefactors, was secured after the
museum was promised £300,000 from the Heritage Lottery Fund.
The fund, which has been sensitive to criticism since
it faced controversy by awarding £12.5 million to buy Sir
Winston Churchill's private papers for the nation, had
earlier refused a grant of £1.2 million for the tiny
goblet. The fund said yesterday that it had not refused
the larger grant because of the explicit scenes but
because of other competing demands.
The goblet, probably discovered in Palestine late last
century, possibly by tomb robbers, shows two pairs of
lovers. In the first, an older, bearded man on a mattress
makes love to a youth. A young boy peers around a door.
In the second a youth makes love to a young boy. Experts
say the figures in this scene are very young as they are
both sporting long pig tails, which were traditionally worn
by boys until puberty.
Dr Dyfri Williams, keeper of the museum's Greek and Roman
department, said yesterday that the goblet, which went on
public display at the museum last night, was the only known
object of its kind. Similar scenes of homosexual and
heterosexual love-making had been found on Roman glass and
pottery, but never before on silverwork.
The Romans, after the moral austerity of Emperor Augustus,
had been sexually liberal, particularly in the Eastern
Empire where the goblet is thought to have been made. They
drew no distinction between homosexual and heterosexual
love and both were celebrated in art, Dr Williams said. The
only stigma attached to sex, he said, was to the eromonos,
the younger passive partner, the one who was loved. His or
her position was regarded as being weak compared to the
erastes, the older, active lover.
The goblet, only five inches high, found its way on to the
European art market around the turn of the century. It was
bought by the wealthy American homosexual antiquities
connoisseur, Edward Perry Warren. An Anglophile, he settled
in Britain and had a large home in Lewes, Sussex. A
contemporary coyly described the house as "a monkish
establishment where women were not welcomed". The goblet,
now known as the Warren Cup, was one of his prized
possessions and he and his coterie quickly began to refer
to it as "The Holy Grail".
Warren commissioned Rodin to produce a version of his
celebrated marble The Kiss for him with instructions that
the sculptor should carve the male with suitably large
genitals. Warren reportedly complained that the results
were disappointing. Warren died in 1928 and he left the
goblet to his male secretary, Asa Thomas. Since then, its
ownership has been a mystery.
The British Museum refused yesterday to say who the seller
was beyond disclosing that it was a group of people who
were "essentially British". Dr Williams said that the
museum had got a bargain because of the generosity of the
owners who wanted the goblet to go to the British Museum.
He believed that it would have fetched £3 million on the
open market.
The museum admitted that there had been some doubts about
whether displaying the cup might offend some visitors. A
spokesman said: "We decided that public reaction will be
our guide."
Dr Williams said the cup had probably been commissioned by
somebody in "the cultural elite" as a festive vessel. He
said: "They [the Romans] were clearly very interested in
sex in a wide, uncomplicated manner but they had no term
for homosexuals. They had different sexual hang-ups from us.
"There is nothing like the Warren Cup. There are quite a
few silver vessels from the Roman period but this is
exceptional not only because of the subject matter but
because of the quality of the work."
-- cutting ends --
Ianthe's note:
_Edward Perry Warren_ was the collector whose purchases
became the foundation of the great collections of
Classical antiquities in the Boston Museum and the
Metropolitan in New York.
Poems by him -- 'The Boy Lover' and five other poems --
can be found in Vol 1, No.4 of _Paidika - Journal of
Paedophilia_
Biographical information (which wilfully obscures
his boy-loving, and all but ignores the poetry) about
Warren's life and mileu can be found in:
Sox, David. Bachelors of Art - Edward Perry Warren and the
Lewes House Brotherhood. Fourth Estate. London, 1991.
--
Ianthe Duende
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 17:14:47 +0200
From: "Giovanni Dall'Orto" <giovanni.dallorto@iol.it>
Subject: Re: Michelangelo + historical contructionism
In 20.46 04/05/99 Jim Miller wrote
>giovanni.dallorto@iol.it writes:
>
><< A "rose" is - always - a social and a cultural construction.
> What WE (me and you) call "a rose" came into being only three centuries
> ago, mostly through hybridisation (I hope I got the right word :))
between > European and Chinese "roses".
> Before that period, the typical rose was a four-petaled flower. Think of
> the coat of arms in the British "war of roses", or on British coins. >>
>
> Um, the wild rose has five petals, like most other woody dicots. It is a
close relative of the apple and pear, also five-petaled woody dicots.
>Unfortunately for your argument my basic academic training is in biology.
In other words, you are not getting through to me. I happen to believe in
the biological classification system which means I believe in roses even if
you try to lump them with morning glories. The question is not whether the
rose is biologically distinct from the tulip, but rather how distinct (VERY
distinct it turns out, the tulip is a monocot. Morning glories at least
are dicots with five-sided flowers.).
> To misquote the poets, "A chrysanthemum is a chrysanthemum is a
chrysanthemum, but by any other name it still won't smell like a rose."
> So, to come back to the topic of sexual orientation, if it has a
biological basis (which transcends differing social constructions) the
question is not whether there are distinct sexual orientations, but rather
how they are distinct. Social conditioning does affect expression of
sexual orientation, but it cannot erase or alter the biological orientation
as far as we know. The question is not whether homosexuality is
constructed or essential, but how much of the sexual expression is
constructed and how much is essential. This question may be asked of any
time period and any culture in which biological humans exist.
>Jim Miller
Dear Jim Miller,
I am bit surprised at the fact that you think that the fact that you have
a biology training is "unfortunate" to me, as if I made that example to
mess up things or to impress you with some obscure and for-initiated-only
mystery.
Actually, I was just trying to make a VERY simple example, by using an
object that everybody knows and thinks s/he knows well, to make my point
easier to understand, and I don't see why making an example should
"impress" anybody. Especially when it is a very simple example.
This said, sorry, you are totally right, "wild" roses are five-petaled
flowers, therefore I wrote a wrong statement. I might blame hurry, but this
is no excuse, ever, so I apologise, which is the only thing I can do.
Yet I hope you will recognise this slip does not affect my reasoning,
which was not dealing with the exact number of petals in wild and garden
roses but rather on "what it is called a rose", regardless of the number of
petals.
Since you have perfectly understood my reasoning the error
notwithstanding, I suppose we can carry on with the debate. :)
I think that what you say sounds perfectly logical to me, and I can but
agree. If your basic academic training is in biology, then you sure know
the wanderings of the biological classification system you say you "believe
in". Animals and plants are continuously switched from one family to
another, and some (many of them) did not find a place yet.
Which is good, because science is "believable" as far as it can correct
its mistakes, whereas no human being, including scientists, makes no mistakes.
By mere coincidence yesterday night I happened to go to bed with a
"Scientific American" article by Charles Sibley & Jon Ahlquist on how
laboratory hybridisation of DNA between different species is thoroughly
changing birds taxonomy. I won't quote you an example taken from this
article because you sure know better than I do what I am talking about.
I can anticipate your answer: this said, you can't still lump a rose with
a whale.
I agree, of course. Yet, animal genes have been transferred to plants,
already, showing that, under a CERTAIN point of view, all life on Earth is
but one phenomenon. It only depends on in what perspective you are
classifying it, whether you need a very general classification or whether
you need an extremely "specific" one.
Neither is "false", neither is "true": both might just be adequate and
responding to the purpose they were created for. I assume you will agree
since I'm saying a series of truisms.
In sum, you correctly write that you "believe" in taxonomy, because every
and each human knowledge requires a certain quantity of trust (in the work
of other humans beings). We all know that absolute Truth is something that
is beyond human reach: we are a part of the experiment we are making, and
by being a part of it we change its results. When you think of your history
of biology lessons, scores of examples of "definitive" truths which were
demonstrated false after a few decades sure come to your mind.
So, back to sexuality.
My point is that ALL human knowledge is an approximation (which means that
no kind of knowledge can be dismissed away just on the base that it is an
approximation: indeed it is, so what?). No category (i.e. "homosexual") is
"true": any word is "relatively" true: relatively to the time period, the
social class, the language... and so on.
Furthermore, one point that social constructionists always miss when they
juxtapose a "modern homosexuality" to an indifferentiate pre-modern
sexuality, is that if we were to accept their method no such a thing as a
"modern homosexuality" category would exist, since no two people today use
the same words in the same meaning.
An example? Think of me and a catholic priest uttering the same word
"homosexuality". The word, the label, sticks on two different, even
opposite "meanings". And I can assure you that if you asked me when I was
16 and I did not accept my homosexuality yet, my utterance would have meant
something totally different from now. And so on.
In sum, as I already told in past postings, words are but labels, they do
not contain any essences. And meanings are and should constantly be
negotiated between those who use the same language.
This is why I said (regardless of the actual number of petals :) ) that
the same meaning can be expressed by different words (e.g. "sodomite" and
"homosexual"), whereas the same word can label things that are very
different, such as ancient and modern roses.
Therefore when I speak of "ancient" and "modern" homosexuals I infer the
same difference existing between "ancient" and "modern" roses, or, if you
prefer, between ancient and modern London.
They are not the same thing, yet they are the same thing. As usual, "panta
rhei", but there are certain features that remained the same, whereas
others completely changed.
Jim, by saying: "Social conditioning does affect expression of sexual
orientation, but it cannot erase or alter the biological orientation as far
as we know. The question is not whether homosexuality is constructed or
essential, but how much of the sexual expression is constructed and how
much is essential", not only you say something I completely agree about,
but you say something Social constructionism completely disagrees about.
I already said I don't give a damn about the aetiology of homosexuality.
My interest is in seeing how a personal and social behaviour interacted
with society through centuries. How it took different names, shapes,
appearances, rites, to adapt and to conform as much as it could to societal
pressure. Social constructionism itself is, in my vision, one such a kind
of adaptation, trying to give homosexuality the lowest possible profile in
basically "hyper-essentialist" and therefore racist (as opposed to
classist, as in my Country) Anglo-Saxon societies.
The point is in fact that Social Constructionism denies any "biological
orientation", to use your words. All is "constructed" through "discourses",
you know.
To sum up, you and me agree on the basic fact that words, names,
discourse, all act on a pre-existing "reality", giving names to it but not
creating it. The fact that you are a biologist sure influenced your point
of view. On the other hand, Social constructionism (whose main advocates
are sociologists and historians of LITERATURE, which sure influenced THEIR
point of view) claims that reality is but a social construct, created by
human beings through discourses, that is: words.
In the field of history of sexuality, homosexuality is but a social
construct, a modern one, which implies you cannot make historical research
on something that did not exist before 1869. Historians of sexuality may be
living too much in their ivory tower and they completely failed to notice
how much this 1869 conundrum acquired the status of indisputable truth - to
the point that I have under my eyes a divulgative book of history of
homosexuality by a Neil Miller, whose title is: "Out of the past. Gay and
lesbian history from 1869 to the present".
It is a nonsense talking about "gay" history before the word came in
widespread political use in the Seventies, but the author (who is
influenced by S.C., of course) seems not to perceive its own contradiction:
he bases an "epistemological break" on the invention of one word, yet
misses another totally identical one.
This kind of shortcomings is quite what I am fighting against.
========
By the way, I have been learning about people as well, through these
postings and replies. I have noticed that more than once people who were
not ready to share my personal point of view, still stuck to some
"essentialist" principle in their reasoning. They (healthily, in my
opinion) posited some real, essential existence of reality.
Furthermore, in some replies one could read the inner feeling that Socials
Constructionism could not have said what I was reproaching... showing to me
that even to Social constructionist eyes S.C. has gone too far, risking to
become a caricature of itself.
This shows to me two things. First, it is impossible to be coherently and
completely a Social Constructionist without realising the risk of falling
prey to solipsism. Which nobody wants, I guess.
Second, the revision of Social Constructionism that some of the postings
discussed about is not only an intellectual necessity: it is something that
is under way already as well.
S.C. might be here to stay, after all (perhaps in one of its newest
postmodernist avatars, or concentrating on the only field where this method
gave interesting results: 19th century medical discourses). But I think
that those who still want to stick to it should have the intellectual
honesty to admit it cannot explain the mass of pre-modern documents that by
now surfaced and that show that homosexuality existed as an "essential"
behaviour, with an identity, a subculture & re, before the famous 1869
"invention" of homosexuality. And to admit that other non S.C. (which does
not mean in itself "essentialist", by the way) approaches may have much to
teach on the history of sexuality.
This is why I have been writing these postings along this month or so: not
certainly to try and change my opponents' mind, but to advocate the right
to have a diversity of approaches in the field of history of
(homo)sexuality, because none of us holds an absolute truth: not me for
sure, but neither my opponents.
I would like to present my papers in the future without being laughed
after instead of discussed and - if case - criticised. If I make mistakes,
as I did by writing that ancient roses had 4 petals in place of 5, poke out
at my mistake and correct me. History can only improve knowledge through
co-operation, and also through discussion and sometimes arguments, but
never ever through sneering, arrogance, jargons, and sect-like behaviours
and lots, lots, lots of attitude, as it has become prevalent by now.
Best wishes.
Giovanni Dall'Orto - Milano (Italy)
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Wed, 5 May 1999 15:53:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Danielle Anne Dufault <n9742545@cc.wwu.edu>
Subject: seeking information....
Hello, I am researching homosexuality at Western Washington University.
My main focus is on male attitudes toward homosexuality and homophobia.
So far,I have found resources about cultural heterosexism, psychological
functions of masculinity to prove who someone "is not," anti-femininity
based on societal expectations of what it takes to "be a man," confused
sexual identity and insecurity (fear of inadequacy), homophobia related to
agression and rape, homopobia as a barrier of intimacy among men,
avoidance behaviors vs. agressive behaviors, the decrease in prejudice
related to increased age, education, and awareness, and psychosexual
developmental anxieties.
My thesis is based on how gender roles in American society have
reinforced homophobia through devaluing femininity. My purpose is to
eductate individuals who are anti-homosexual to figure out why they are
homophobic and the reasoning behind it.
The term "homophobia," in psychological terms would mean "fear of
homosexuals." In "The Male Couple," by David P. McWhirter and Andrew M.
Mattison, they claim that:
"other fears such as claustrophobia can be avoided or mastered.
The fear of being homosexual can manifest itself in personality defense
mechanisms. Defense Mechanisms protect a person from feeling guilt,
shame, or anxiety caused by his intrapsychic conflict over homosexual
wishes, impulses, or hehaviors, become detrimental and debilhitating in
his life, work, and especially in his relationships."
Does anyone agree that "homophobia" has lost some of its meaning because
it is believed that people cannot master their homophobia? Does anyone
have any information or insight about whether people can or cannot
overcome homophobia? Personal experiences, texts or other materials? Any
general insight on the matter?
I would appreciate any comments.
Thanks,
Dani
___________________________________________________________________ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 11:28:14 -0400
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Michelangelo loves Abe Lincoln
>What has made homosexual men recognizable in distinction from ordinary
>men, has
>always -- until this century in AngloSaxia -- been their lack of desire for or
>experience with women.
You raise several interesting points in the above, probably none with which
I agree :)
Why "until this century in AngloSaxia"?
Can a male "homosexual" also have "desire for or experience with women"?
Or if a male homosexual does indeed "also" have "desire for or experience
with women," does that necessarily make make him something "other" than a
"homosexual"?
>This is what needs to be demonstrated for Michelangelo in
>order to identify him as "a homosexual."
Nah, "this is what needs to be demonstrated for Michelangelo in order" only
for you and some others "to identify him as 'a homosexual.'"
>For homosexual women, particularly butch dykes, the case has been different,
>because throughout history any woman with an aggressive demeanor who pursues
>other women sexually is likely to be called unfeminine, regardless of whether
>she enjoys sex with men or not. Usually she is seen as a would-be competitor
>against men for the attentions of more "feminine"-acting women. However, these
>"feminine"-acting women would not be differentiated from the majority of women
>just because of having homosexual desires or experiences, either.
Why not? I don't follow your conclusion.
___________________________________________________________________ Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 10:44:23 -0400
From: Bob <suannschafer@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Social constructionism and homosexualitiy and Michelangelo
>Bob says:
>< "I cringe when my students refer to Michelangelo as a
><"homosexual." Why? Because describing someone in the sixteenth century as
><"gay, "homosexual," "finocchio," "queer," "a faggot," "having same-sex
><desire," the list goes on however you choose to describe it, does not have
><the same "meaning"/connotation as it does to contemporary audiences."
>
>I take it, then, that Bob would *not* cringe if his students used the
>proper 16th century Italian term and called Michelangelo a sodomite
>rather than a homosexual.
I probably would.
>Personally, I'm quite happy calling him
>queer, as this term bridges the gap between historical periods.
He is queer, but I wouldn't encourage students to use this term because of
its connotations.
>Perhaps
>the best solution is to avoid specific terms and just say what we mean:
>Michelangelo fucked boys rather than girls. Or would that make Bob
>cringe as well?
Yes, see below.
>Michelangelo's contemporaries Leonardo da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli,
>Benvenuto Cellini and Giovanni Antonio Bazzi (Il Sodoma) were publicly
>charged with sodomy (Leonardo was even imprisoned for two months), and
>Michelangelo, like them, was offered sexual "services" by the *ragazzi*
>who worked as apprentices in the art studios.
While I can acknowledge what you write about the others above, I'm not
familiar with any "evidence" that Michelangelo was offered "sexual
services."
>Whether his love-gift to
>Tommaso Cavalieri of a drawing of the rape of Ganymede is an emblem of
>neoplatonic sublimation or an invitation to bed, I don't know,
And that's a useful acknowledgment.
>but
>there cannot be too much doubt that Michelangelo had sexual relations
>with his model Gherardo Perini and his assistant Febo di Poggio.
And the "evidence" of the above is?
>I
>won't say that all of this contextual evidence
And "contextual" evidence would be?
>(plus the evidence of
>our perception of the apparently homoerotic content of the "ignudi* in
>the Sistine Chapel and *The Dying Captive* and various other sculpture;
And the "evidence" of that "apparently homoerotic content" to the
individuals of Michelangelo's own time (as opposed to "our perception")
would be?
And my point is in regard to what you yourself term "our" perception.
>plus the poetic theme of struggling to come to terms with himself, in
>the context of guilt of some sort;
Hmmm. A very "modern" notion.
>plus the fact that he was an
>inveterate bachelor and non-womanizer), amounts to proof positive that
>Michelangelo fucked men.
All of the above amounts to no "proof" at all, but, as you aptly put it,
"our perception."
You seem conveniently to have forgotten societal, religious, and cultural
prohibitions, and the fact that although a male may have the desire to
"fuck men," a male does not necessarily have to act on this desire. This
is not to imply that one has to act on one's desires in order to be a
homosexual, but neither does a male have to "fuck men" in order to be a
homosexual.
Thus I cringe when anyone refers to Michelangelo as queer or states that he
fucks men in the absence of any proof or any contextualization of what it
might have meant to "fuck men" in the social, religious, and cultural
context of the sixteenth century. It's a simplistic, reductive conclusion.
> But I will say that Michelangelo the Younger's
>censorship provides as much evidence as is needed to prove that
>Michelangelo's sonnets were *perceived during his own time as the
>product of a man who fucked men (i.e. a homosexual)* ....
See above with regard to "evidence."
>To turn from the narrow issue of Michelangelo to the broader context of
>language, I would argue that "homosexual" or "queer" are perfectly
>accurate and meaningful equivalents for the 15th-century and 16th-
>century Italian terms for "inveterate sodomite", "infamous sodomite"
>and "notorious sodomite", whose existence is well documented by Michael
>Rocke in _Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in
>Renaissance Florence_. Although Rocke is a constructionist and contends
>that "homosexuals" did not constitute a sexually distinct minority with
>regard to the large majority of men who engaged in homosexual
>relations, even he nevertheless admits that the category of "inveterate
>sodmites" did in fact constitute a "distinct minority" (Rocke's phrase
>for them: an important concession) of older sodomites who were so
>dedicated to exclusive homosexuality throughout their lives (and who lived
>and worked in sodomitical neighbourhoods and frequented sodomitical
>cruising grounds) that it can be said to have formed an important
>factor in their self-identity.
And thus "homosexual" or "queer" are only appropriate usages given the
context you have provided via Rocke.
>
>If Bob's students do indeed misuse the term homosexual to mean flaming
>queen, then I would say that although Michelangelo had little in common with
>Quentin Crisp, the suggestion that queens existed in 16th century Italy
>is not as anachronistic as Bob seems to think.
That's your inference. Of course their were cross-dressers in
sixteenth-century Italy.
>In sum, most of the related concepts that we associate with the modern term
>homosexual were also held in 15th and 16th century Italy.
And that's your conclusion, one to which you are entitled, but one which I
find particularly reductive, naive, and simplistic, particularly if one
associates/connotes "homosexual" with the contemporary "gay" with its own
political connotations -- as many do. The result is that these become
catch-all terms, the meaning of which is frequently determined by the
individual speaker, as, for example, the connotation of "queer" in one
speaker's use can have a very different meaning when used by another.
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Chris Willis" <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Slang - thanks!
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 00:07:46 +0100
Hi!
Thanks to everyone who replied to my query about the phrase "knocked up".
The references to low slang are particularly interesting. Eliot was
obviously middle-class and was writing in 1859, but "Adam Bede" is set in
1799 and the phrase is used by a working-class character (a pub landlord) so
I think it's just about possible that she intended it to be read in both
senses - "exhausted" and "pregnant", both of which would apply to the
character, who's heavily pregnant and has just completed an exhausting
journey. (the reference is near the end of Chapter 36 of "Adam Bede" - p
357 of the Everyman edition).
On a slightly frivolous note, Lesley's mention of different UK and US uses
of "knocked up" reminds me of a Scottish friend who took a job in America
and had to be warned that his favourite expression "suck it and see" has a
more literal meaning in the USA than in Scotland!
All the best
Chris
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 06 May 1999 16:58:38 +0200
From: "Giovanni Dall'Orto" <giovanni.dallorto@iol.it>
Subject: Sodomites and social constructionism
In 10.13 05/05/99 +0000, aquarius@well.com wrote>>>>
>>>>
(To Giovanni Dall'Orto: "Sodomite" is not a separate category of being
any more than, say, "womanizer." If you don't sodomize, you're not a
sodomite. The Christian and post-Christian system that calls people
sodomites does not categorize people according to their feelings and
desires, but according to their actions. This is why the Christian right
calls homosexuality a choice, because one always chooses one's actions.
But you can be gay without ever having sex at all.)
Mark Brustman
<<<<<<<<
This is a mantra that has been repeated over and over, yet never
demonstrated. In fact, it is no more, no less than false.
I myself, when I was 25, thought the same as you: I had just read my
Foucault and I went so far to write such a thing in a paper I
published... :(
However, after making a deeper research, and above all after reading
original documents, in place of modern interpretations of them, I had to
change my mind and now I am what you see. A "born again essentialist", I
guess :))))
The fact that ""<underline>Sodomite" is not a separate category of being
any more than, say, "womanizer</underline>", as you put it, is an axiom,
not a sound historical datum.
In a previous posting I already cited the Brazilian bishop saying in
16th century Bahia that "this filthiness between women is sodomy"; Jean
Gerson saying that a man masturbating thinking of a man is a sodomite;
14th century Paris prostitutes who yelled "sodomite" after students who
had refused to have intercourse with them; the treatise saying that a man
who dreams of an intercourse with men is a sodomite...
As you see, "sodomite" meant something much wider than just a man who
copulated anally (which it meant indeed, too). It ALSO meant: "people of
both sexes - including women - having intercourse with a person of the
same sex", "persons who fantasise about a person of the same sex to get
sexual arousal", "persons who refuse to have intercourse with persons of
the opposite sex".
Not bad, huh? Looks like "homosexual"... :)
I won't repeat myself further: people might get bored.
But I ask you to take into consideration these data at last before you
stick again to you axioms. When theories and data conflict, we have two
choices: changing our theories (my solution) or disregarding data. And of
course I don't think you would choose the second one.
Best wishes
Giovanni Dall'Orto
P.S. A question for you. What would <underline>you</underline> call "a
rose"?
Would you call an ancient Roman rose, a rose?
And if yes, what is the kind of <bold>essence</bold> that makes and
object which changed shape, colour and genetic pool still remain the
same?
Thank you for your answer.
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Michelangelo
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 22:53:43 +0100
Bob asks what evidence there is that Michelangelo was offered "sexual
services", and also asks what "evidence" I have for saying "there cannot be
too much doubt that Michelangelo had sexual relations with his model
Gherardo Perini and his assistant Febo di Poggio."
Michelangelo in a letter to Niccolo Quaratesi (who was also probably a
boyfriend) humourously recalls how a father described his son to him in the
hopes of the boy becoming the artist's apprentice: "Once you saw him, you'd
chase him into bed the minute you got home!" Rumours that Michelangelo was
susceptible to such offers were spreading by the early 1530s, and he
bitterly denounced "the throng, malign and brutish, scoffing at what the few
possess." In November 1545 Pietro Aretino, examining the paintings of naked
youths in the Sistine Chapel, which he considered to be homoerotic, made his
charges quite explicit: "Even if you are divine, you don't disdain male
consorts." He specifically named two of these boyfriends as Gherardo Perini
and Tommaso Cavalieri.
The handsome model Gherardo Perini came to work for Michelangelo around
1520; their love flourished between 1522-25, and lasted until the mid-1530s.
Whenever Perini failed to show up at the studios, Michelangelo's nights were
wracked by dreadful anxiety. In an anguish of loneliness he addressed his
own daimon: "I beg you not to make me draw this evening since Perino's not
here." This note was scrawled on a page bearing a drawing of a naked cherub
urinating into a vase. The drawing of _Venus, Mars and Cupid_ (1524) was
presented as a gift to Perini, and well renders the onslaughts of the
deities of desire that Michelangelo was experiencing. Writings on other
fragments of studies, and some of the verse written during 1520-30, probably
express Michelangelo's passion for Perini. Robert C. Clements, a major
Michelangelo scholar, believes that Michelangelo's affair with Perini was
overtly homosexual (see his books _Michelangelo's Theory of Art_, 1960;
_Michelangelo: A Self-Portrait_, 1962; and _The Poetry of Michelangelo_,
1966).
Michelangelo's affair with Febo di Poggio began in the early 1530s, ending
about 1534. He was "a little blackmailer". Michelangelo wrote on a page
containing financial calculations: "Here with his beautiful eyes he promised
me solace,/ And with those very eyes he tried to take it away from me."
Several poems pun upon the boy's name -- "Febo" equals Phoebus, and "poggio"
is the Italian word for "hill" -- and suggest physical consummation:
"Blithe bird, excelling us by fortune's sway,
Of Phoebus' [Febo] thine the prize of lucent notion,
Sweeter yet the boon of winged promotion
To the hill [poggio] whence I topple and decay!"
But such a "topple" was a sweet defeat:
"Easily could I soar, with such a happy fate,
When Phoebus [Febo] brightened up the heights [poggio].
His feathers were wings and the hill [poggio] the stair.
Phoebus [Febo] was a lantern to my feet."
I'm not the only one who recognizes the literary conventions of sexuality in
these lines. Because of their eroticism, Joseph Tusiani in his edition of
Michelangelo's _Complete Poems_ (1960) went out of his way to argue that
these poems were addressed to Vittoria Colonna! It's amazing how
homophobically blind scholars were well into the 1970s.
Another boyfriend I hadn't mentioned was Francesco (Cecchino) de Zanobi
Bracci, the 13-year-old boy whom 66-year-old Michelangelo was sleeping with
in 1542, and who died suddenly in 1544. Michelangelo composed 50 epitaphs
trying to get one that was just right for the boy's tomb. Michelangelo
refers to the boy as "the flame who consumes me" and he relates a dream in
which the boy "mocked my senile love." One epitaph goes:
"The earthy flesh, and here my bones deprived
Of their charming face and beautiful eyes,
Do yet attest for him how gracious I was in bed
When he embraced, and in what the soul doth live."
When Michelangelo learned that the boy's uncle Luigi del Riccio planned to
publish all these epitaphs, he begged Riccio to destroy them, for "You
certianly have the power to disgrace me."
Many of the letters and poems concerning both Febo di Poggio and Cecchino
Bracci were suppressed and did not appear in modern English editions of the
Letters of Poems through the mid-1970s when I was preparing a little study
on Michelangelo in 1975. I don't know what the current state of affairs is.
Here are some references:
Rictor Norton, "The Passions of Michelangelo", in Winston Leyland (ed.),
_Gay Roots: An Anthology of Gay History, Sex, Politics and Culture_ (San
Francisco: Gay Sunshine Press, 1993), pp. 147-52.
Giorgio Lise, _L'Altro Michelangelo_ (Milan: Cordani, 1981).
James M. Saslow, "'A veil of ice between my heart and the fire':
Michelangelo's sexual identity and early modern constructs of
homosexuality", _Genders_, 2 (July 1988), pp. 77-90.
--
Rictor Norton
mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/gayhist.htm
___________________________________________________________________
Received: from mta4.iol.it (195.210.91.154)
by www61.linkexchange.com with SMTP; 7 May 1999 14:48:08 -0000
Date: Fri, 07 May 1999 16:48:24 +0200
From: "Giovanni Dall'Orto" <giovanni.dallorto@iol.it>
Subject: Re: UK news on Roman boy-love cup - British Museum acquires for
=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A31.8m?=
In 19.28 05/05/99 +0100, Ianthe ha scritto:
> "There is nothing like the Warren Cup. There are quite a
>few silver vessels from the Roman period but this is
>exceptional not only because of the subject matter but
>because of the quality of the work."
>
>-- cutting ends --
>
>Ianthe's note:
>
>_Edward Perry Warren_ was the collector whose purchases
>became the foundation of the great collections of
>Classical antiquities in the Boston Museum and the
>Metropolitan in New York...
I shall add: and the most impressive collection of erotic and above all
homoerotic Attic vases on display in any Western museum.
He was a well known collector of homosexually-themed object. So antique
dealers brought him any such object that was found, sure he would buy it.
My puzzled question is: were they maybe that sure to the point of becoming
a bit bold, and to bring him something that had not actually been... found?
Uniqueness is something that is shared by two types of objects: incredibly
precious ancient objects... and fakes.
Is there any art historian in this list sharing my doubts? The comments
made in the article Ianthe is forwarding make clear this object is telling
us a lot about how ancient (i.e. Roman times) homosexuality is considered
now: unbridled, outspoken, almost "gay". Which is something that one does
not find in ancient Roman literaure... nor in ancient Roman art... never...
apart for this very object!
I would like some expert's opinion. Even Italian newspapers are talking a
lot about the unusual deal. Yet the great art critic Federico Zeri always
warned that an object without any background and without parallels should
be immediately (although not too stubbornly) suspected as a fake... even,
no, especially if it perfectly fits all we espect from such an object...
After all a fake-maker of a very high level (such as the one who produced
this cup - if it is a fake-) would make anything to fit all he is espected
to fit: from using ancient coins to get original ancient silver, to asking
expert's advice and so on.
By the way, I saw a picture of the object. The surface was sanded away.
Which prevents a thorough analysis of it and of the signs that time might
have left on it... if there were any, in the first palce.
In sum: this looks to me too much as the ideal object that a homosexual
collector would have wanted to own in 19th century not to think that this
is a dream made true.
By means of a 19th century jeweller.
Thanks in advance for any expert eye willing to reply my profane eye doubts.
Giovanni Dall'Orto
___________________________________________________________________ From: "Greg Reeder" <reeder@sirius.com>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_UK_news_on_Roman_boy-love_cup_-_British_Museum_acquire?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?s_for_=A31.8m?=
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 17:54:06 -0700
Dear Giovanni,
The Warren Cup is discussed in detail in >Looking At Lovemaking:
Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art 100BC - AD 250.< John R. Clarke,
Berkeley 1998. There you will find several photographs and notes on the
published literature. Though Clarke does indicate that the cup has had a
mysteriuos past ( no known owner before Warren) the author does say it has
similarities in style to silver cups found in the House of Menander in
Pompeii,
though those have heterosexul themes.
Greg Reeder
reeder@sirius.com
http://www.egyptology.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Giovanni Dall'Orto <giovanni.dallorto@iol.it>
To: Histsex:For historians of sexuality <histsex@listbot.com>
Cc: Wrdynes@aol.com <Wrdynes@aol.com>; raibi@tin.it <raibi@tin.it>
Date: Friday, May 07, 1999 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: UK news on Roman boy-love cup - British Museum acquires for
£1.8m
Cut most of it out.
>
>Is there any art historian in this list sharing my doubts? The comments
>made in the article Ianthe is forwarding make clear this object is telling
>us a lot about how ancient (i.e. Roman times) homosexuality is considered
>now: unbridled, outspoken, almost "gay". Which is something that one does
>not find in ancient Roman literaure... nor in ancient Roman art... never...
>apart for this very object!
>
>
>
>Giovanni Dall'Orto
>
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Greg Reeder" <reeder@sirius.com>
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_UK_news_on_Roman_boy-love_cup_-_British_Museum_acquire?=
=?iso-8859-1?Q?s_for_=A31.8m?=
Date: Sat, 8 May 1999 21:30:48 -0700
I mentioned in an earlier post that the Warren Cup is discussed in detail in
John R. Clarke's >Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman
Art, 100 B.C.--A.D. 250.<
Here-http://www.linguafranca.com/9807/inside.html - is a short rearview of
that work from Lingua Franca.
Greg Reeder
reeder@sirius.com
http://www.egyptology.com/
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 19:12:18 +0200
From: "Giovanni Dall'Orto" <giovanni.dallorto@iol.it>
Subject: Re: UK news on Roman boy-love cup - British Museum acquires for
=?iso-8859-1?Q?=A31.8m?=
In 21.30 08/05/99 -0700, hai scritto:
>Histsex:For historians of sexuality - http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah
>
>I mentioned in an earlier post that the Warren Cup is discussed in detail in
>John R. Clarke's >Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman
>Art, 100 B.C.--A.D. 250.<
> Here-http://www.linguafranca.com/9807/inside.html - is a short rearview of
>that work from Lingua Franca.
>
>Greg Reeder
>
>reeder@sirius.com
>
>http://www.egyptology.com/
Dear Greg Reeder,
thank you for this piece of information. As soon as I go to the library
I'll look for this books, as well for another entry my attention was called
upon after my posting,
POLLINI, JOHN, The Warren Cup: Homoerotic Love and Symposial Rhetoric in
Silver, "Art Bulletin", March 1999 (81:1), 21-52.
Summary: "This paper offers a new interpretation of the cup's date,
subject matter, function and significance and considers for the first time
the cup' s presumed lost m a t e and its possible imagery. The rhetorical
and aporetic nature of its scenes, its intended audience, and the role of
such cups in the intellectual discourse of the Roman banquet are discussed."
I realise I cannot discuss further the topic without... going off-topic,
since we would enter the field of art rather than history of sexuality.
Yet let me add a few more lines before stopping (I swear!).
The fact that this cup has close correspondence with other similar cups
found in Casa del Menandro is one more point that makes me dubious. It's
TOO similar. I saw both the Boscoreale treasure at the Louvre and the
Menandro silverware (in picture only), which if I don't remember wrong was
discovered more or less in the same period when the Warren cup is assumed
to have been discovered.
Well, I insist that using known, genuine objects as a departure base for a
fake is the commonest thing that happens in the field of fakes. I'm sure
for instance the silver can withstand any chemical analysis even if the
object is a fake: at this very high level of forgeries it should come from
ancient, genuine silver coins. The shape should fit in very well known
categories. And so on.
However, I won't dispute on the ground of art history. If it's a fake and
it fooled the British Museum experts, then it is a very high quality fake.
I don't have the slightest doubt that the British Museum curators know the
topic 100 times better than I do. My only problem is that this object
should not exist, simply, such as a 16th century silver or ivory statue of
Jesus heterosexually copulating with Mary Magdalen. It MIGHT have been done
(in an Inquisition trial I read in the Venice archive, from 16th century, a
woman owned a wood statue of Jesus bare and with an erect penis), but it is
soooo unlikely that it resurfaces today in the antique market! If it did,
what would you think about it?
Only if we posit an undifferentiated ancient bi-sexuality (as popular
folklore has, in fact), we can assume that since heterosexual love silver
cups existed, then also homosexual ones should have existed. In fact, here
is one, Mr Warren, that I was just given yesterday.. what a coincidence,
idn'it, Sir? Looking quite quite quite as the Boscoreale and Menandro ones...
I don't care whether the British Museum bought a genuine or a fake cup:
it's a nice object, that's all. But I can't fit this object into what I
know of Roman times. Perhaps I should change my opinion, simply. But before
doing it, I have the right to call the attention on the fact that I only
know one representation of homosexual anal copulation (apart for graffiti
scribbled as a form of insult) from Roman times (although of course there
can exist many more I am not aware of), and it comes from a BROTHEL in
Pompeii. And now, here is a SILVER, luxury object, made for display (!!!)
and with two of them at once! WOW!
On the other hand, we know of very many images of that kind that were made
in 19th century. I myself own reproductions of scenes of homosexual anal
copulation from late 1800s showing Hadrian fucking Antinuous and Socrates
reaching for a nude Alcibiades (I can send them to any one curious enough
to see them). Well, in my opinion the cup fits in the same cathegory with
these two pictures... and with the "Amours des dieux" gravures of the same
period, most of them fakes themselves.
Well, if anybody wants to further answer my doubts and show me why I am
wrong, could s/he please write at my private address,
giovanni.dallorto@iol.it,
to discuss in private form?
Thank you again
Giovanni Dall'Orto
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 21:31:05 +0200
From: "Giovanni Dall'Orto" <giovanni.dallorto@iol.it>
Subject: Who was Warren, previpous owner of the Warren cup.
Infomration on Ned Warren, previous owner of the Warren cup, at:
http://www.sbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/ihiedwardwarren.html
On eof the people who helped him build the collection.
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/8616/romfot1.htm
It's in Italian, but look at the picture and you'll understand several
things. I wish I met such an "archaeologist" such as him every day... He
ended his life as an Inn-keepr, by the way.
Love.
Giovanni Dall'Orto
___________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: UK news on Roman boy-love cup - British Museum acquire s for =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=a31.8m?=
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 10:25:52 -0500
From: "Michael J. Murphy" <mjmurphy@artsci.wustl.edu>
Besides John Clarke's excellent work, an article on the Warren Cup
appeared in the March issue of the College Art Association's Art
Bulletin. Don't have the cite handy--let me know if anyone needs it and
I'll look it up.
Mike Murphy
>I mentioned in an earlier post that the Warren Cup is discussed in detail in
>John R. Clarke's >Looking at Lovemaking: Constructions of Sexuality in Roman
>Art, 100 B.C.--A.D. 250.<
> Here-http://www.linguafranca.com/9807/inside.html - is a short rearview of
>that work from Lingua Franca.
>
>Greg Reeder
Michael J. Murphy
Graduate Student, Dept. of Art History and Archaeology
Washington University, St. Louis
"I've always depended on the kindness of strangers." -Blanche Dubois
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 09:27:19 +0200
From: "Giovanni Dall'Orto" <giovanni.dallorto@iol.it>
Subject: OBJECTS OF DESIRE: HOMOSEXUALITIES AND THE HISTORY OF
COLLECTING
Re. the Warren cup I fas forwarded by a friend of mine this call for
paper, which I am now forwarding in my turn.
Best wishes
G. DAll'Orto
==========
<excerpt>>Call for papers
>
</excerpt>>OBJECTS OF DESIRE:
<excerpt>>HOMOSEXUALITIES AND THE HISTORY OF COLLECTING
>
>A conference sponsored by the Lesbian and Gay Studies Project of the
>Center for Gender Studies at the University of Chicago, April 8, 2000.
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/cgs/lgsp.html
>The cliche of the homosexual art collector is most famously
>articulated by Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray for whom the "treasures, and
>everything that he collected in his lovely house, were to him a means
of
>forgetfulness, modes by which he could escape, for a season, from the
>fear
>that seemed to him at times to be almost too great to be borne." This
>pathological view of the pervert's private art collection as shield,
>substitute or fetish has prevented serious analysis of the
relationship
>between same-sex desire and the history of collecting. From the
"first"
>connoisseur of art, Jean, Duc de Berry in the early fifteenth-century,
>through the Roman cardinals who patronized Caravaggio, to figures like
>Horace Walpole, William Beckford and Gertrude Stein, collectors have
>long
>been visible in culture. But the historical links that would make
>relevant
>the homosexuality associated with these individuals to the kind of
>objects they appropriated for themselves have never been the subject
of
>serious study. Although the history of collecting has become a major
>field
>in Art History with its own conferences and a journal, the role of
>sexual
>desire in this history is still unexplored. Our one-day conference
aims
>to
>open up some of these issues by focusing on case-studies across a
range
>of
>historical periods. How might we begin to construct a history of the
>taste, display, collecting and appreciation of art in the West that
>included the role of various sexual subcultures and networks? How was
>collecting linked in the nineteenth-century with nascent notions of
>perversity? How can historians and art historians utilize new research
>on
>gender and sexuality to describe the function of objects in private
>space?
>Moreover, how public were private desires, for example in the case of
>Graeco-Roman statuary which was so often a charged site of eroticism?
Is
>there a specifically lesbian tradition of collecting? How are these
>paradigms of collecting, display and accumulation played out in
today's
>Lesbian and Gay worlds?
>
>CALL FOR PAPERS: 20-30 minutes in length. Please send a two-page
>abstract and a c.v. by June 1, 1999 to
>
>Michael Camille
>Department of Art History
>University of Chicago
>5540 South Greenwood Avenue
>Chicago IL 60657
>or to <<mcamille@midway.uchicago.edu>
>
>Selected papers from the proceedings will be published in a special
>issue of Art History.
>
>Some funds will be available to bring speakers from outside the
Chicago
>area. The projected date for the conference is Saturday 8th April
2000.
>Submissions are welcomed from art historians, historians and anyone
>working in the area of Cultural Studies and gender/sexuality.
>
>
>--
>George Chauncey, Department of History, University of Chicago
>1126 E. 59 St., Chicago IL 60637
</excerpt>>Tel: 773-702-8385 Fax: 773-702-7550
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 07:14:11 +0100
From: Hera Cook <hera.cook@virgin.net>
Subject: introduction
Hi, I am just joining the list. Currently my research interests are
primarily women and shifts in heterosexual embodied sexual behaviour in
the 20th century. I have just completed a doctorate on this topic at
Sussex - The Long Sexual Revolution, British Women, Sex and
Contraception in the 20th Century - and am now spending a year in Sydney
comparing this to aspects of Australian women's experience.
Thanks
Hera Cook
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 01:11:59 +0200
Subject: new website Magnus Hirschfeld Society
From: ralfdose@t-online.de (Ralf Dose)
Dear Colleagues,
this is to let you know that our homepage is now working. It it mainly in
German, but there are some parts in English, too.
Many thanks to Lesley who hosted a preliminary version on her website!
Ralf Dose M.A.
Magnus-Hirschfeld-Gesellschaft e.V.
Chodowieckistr. 41, D-10405 Berlin
x49-30-441 39 73 office phone/fax
mhg@magnus.in-berlin.de office e-mail
http://www.in-berlin.de/user/hirschfeld
x49-30-215 94 74 home phone
ralfdose@t-online.de home e-mail
From: "Chris Willis" <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Oscar Wilde - slang again
Date: Mon, 24 May 1999 22:40:42 +0100
Hi!
Please could I appeal to the collective wisdom of the list (useful phrase
that!) in regard to some work I'm doing on Oscar Wilde? I'm looking at
reports of Wilde's trials, and have been intrigued by some of the language
used. I'd be grateful for any help on the following - many thanks!
1) Rent and renters
There are references to a young man trying to "rent" Wilde. This is in the
context of blackmail - "renting" appears to refer to blackmailing someone
about his homosexuality. I've also come across a reference (in a historical
novel) to male prostitutes being referred to as "renters" (not in the
context of blakmail - more as an equivalent of the modern "rent boy"). So,
what I'm wondering is whether the trems "renter" or "rent boy" were used as
slang for male prostitutes in the 1890s, and when they first came into use.
2) Queens
Was "queen" used to descibe homosexual men in the 1890s? One of the
newspaper reports makes a rather odd reference to Wilde living "near Queen
Street" rather than giving his correct address of Tite Street.
3) Queer
There's also a reference to "something queer going on" between Wilde and
Bosie. Am I right in thinking "queer" didn't mean then what it does now,
and if so, when was it first used to mean homosexual?
4) Guardsmen
I've come across various references to guardsmen being notorious as male
prostitutes in the 1890s, but most of these are from 20C sources. There's
also a reference to guardsmen as prostitutes in Mayhew (1862), but this
refers to them being gigolos to rich women. Do these references have any
basis in fact? And why Guardsmen rather than any other regiment?
Many thanks for letitng me pick your brains!
All the best
Chris
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 08:57:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing <gd2@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Oscar Wilde - slang again
At 10:40 PM 5/24/99, "Chris Willis" <chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm looking at
>reports of Wilde's trials, and have been intrigued by some of the language
>used. I'd be grateful for any help on the following - many thanks!
>
>1) Rent and renters
>There are references to a young man trying to "rent" Wilde. This is in the
>context of blackmail - "renting" appears to refer to blackmailing someone
>about his homosexuality. I've also come across a reference (in a historical
>novel) to male prostitutes being referred to as "renters" (not in the
>context of blakmail - more as an equivalent of the modern "rent boy"). So,
>what I'm wondering is whether the trems "renter" or "rent boy" were used as
>slang for male prostitutes in the 1890s, and when they first came into use.
>
"Renter" was in this sense, though it is not yet clear now much further back
this specific usage goes than the 1890's:
OED2 renter n.1, meaning 6:
6. A male prostitute. slang.
1893 O. Wilde Let. Mar. (1964) 336, I would sooner be blackmailed by every
renter in London, than have you bitter, unjust, hating.
1895 Beerbohm Let. 3 May (1964) 103 It was horrible leaving the court day
after day and having to pass through a knot of renters.
1969 Jeremy I. iii. 22/2 Renter, male prostitute.
1972 D. Sutton Lett. R. Fry I. 5 In many cases `affairs' were more
idealistic than that practised by the `renters' of Piccadilly.
>2) Queens
>Was "queen" used to descibe homosexual men in the 1890s? One of the
>newspaper reports makes a rather odd reference to Wilde living "near Queen
>Street" rather than giving his correct address of Tite Street.
>
Given currently available evidence, the answer here is no. Like a lot of
modern sexual lingo, this particular usage emerges in the post-WWI era.
However, note that both "queen" and "quean," as discussed in OED2, possess
senses and connotations that have to do with moral and sexual "misbehavior,"
and it is in fact these senses and connotations that laid the groundwork for
the emergence of queen/homosexual in the 1920's. (And note also the feminine
aspect of "queen/quean," which is etymologically derived from the same
ulterior source as, for example, Greek _gyne_ = woman). So even though a
journalist of the 1890's would not be able to allude to the sense
queen/homosexual which does not yet exist, that journalist might be having a
little "fun" giving Wilde's street address in such a way as to allude to
femininity and to non-mainstream sexual mores ("quean" was sometimes used to
mean "prostitute" or "loose woman"; see OED2 quean).
OED2 queen n., meaning 12
12. A male homosexual, esp. the effeminate partner in a homosexual
relationship. slang. Cf. quean 3 [first citation for "quean in this sense is
1935].
earliest citation yet found:
1924 Truth (Sydney) 27 Apr. 6 Queen, effeminate person.
>3) Queer
>There's also a reference to "something queer going on" between Wilde and
>Bosie. Am I right in thinking "queer" didn't mean then what it does now,
>and if so, when was it first used to mean homosexual?
>
Yes, you're right, that specific meaning hadn't yet emerged, though the
general idea of queer=unusual would have permitted *vague* allusion to the
idea of homosexuality without alluding to the *established sense* of
queer/homosexual, which did not yet exist in the 1890's. After all, new
usages such as queer/homosexual arise from existing meanings and connotations.
OED2 queer adjective 1, meaning 1b:
1b. Of a person (usu. a man): homosexual. Also in phr. as queer as a coot
(cf. coot n.1 2 b). Hence, of things: pertaining to homosexuals or
homosexuality. orig. U.S.
1922 Pract. Value of Scientific Study of Juvenile Delinquents (Children's
Bureau, U.S. Dept. of Labor) 8 A young man, easily ascertainable to be
unusually fine in other characteristics, is probably `queer' in sex tendency.
1931 G. Irwin Amer. Tramp & Underworld Slang 153 Queer, crooked; criminal.
Also applied to effeminate or degenerate men or boys.
1936 J. G. Cozzens Men & Brethren i. 24 `He's not queer, or something, is
he?' `Lord, no! Worse than that. He's a convert.'
1937 Listener 10 Mar. (Suppl.) p. vii/2 `Queer', in a specifically sexual
sense---a word imported from America.
1939 C. Isherwood Goodbye to Berlin 296 Men dressed as women?... Do you mean
they're queer?
In general, OED2 and Partridge's _Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional
English_ will give you basic information and documentation of this kind. If
you need more detail and nuance, there's a secondary literature on almost
everything at this juncture, though it is always subject to revision and
improvement.
I happen to be up on this at the moment because a discussion took place
earlier this month on the Joyce listserv about the use of "gay" in
connection with Buck Mulligan in the first episode of _Ulysses_.
Gay/homosexual does not seem to have emerged till the 1930's, as documented
by Ron Butters of Duke University in a paper delivered at the Lavender
Languages Conference in 1995; for further info on this sense of "gay,"
contact me.
>4) Guardsmen
>I've come across various references to guardsmen being notorious as male
>prostitutes in the 1890s, but most of these are from 20C sources. There's
>also a reference to guardsmen as prostitutes in Mayhew (1862), but this
>refers to them being gigolos to rich women. Do these references have any
>basis in fact? And why Guardsmen rather than any other regiment?
>
If you find out more about this, please let us know.... Thanks....
Greg Downing/NYU, at greg.downing@nyu.edu or gd2@is2.nyu.edu
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Oscar Wilde - slang again
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 15:50:22 +0100
I am sure that there are many members of the list better able than I to
answer these intriguing queries. However, re guardsmen as male prostitutes,
I am currently reading the new Randolph Trumbach 'Sex and Gender in C18th
London' (but don't have it to hand at the moment, it's in my office at work)
in which there is an allusion to guardsmen in a (possibly) solicitation
context, relatively early C18th. I'll try and retrieve a better reference
next time I'm in the office (or someone else who can immediately lay hands
on the book may be able to locate it?)
A much later ref to upper class man/guardsman liaisons, is in E Leeves,
_Leaves from a Victorian Diary_, which mentions his affair with 'Jack', a
guardsman who died of cholera.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
Date: 25 May 1999 15:07:29 -0000
From: Histsex:For historians of sexuality <histsex-owner@listbot.com>
Subject: Admin notice
As the holiday season approaches, list-members may want to stop receiving
messages while they are away. Unfortunately, at present Listbot does not
have a 'hold' or 'suspend' mail facility. It is therefore necessary to
unsubscribe and then resubscribe if you do not want messages piling up in
your inbox during your absence. Messages are posted to the archive and can
be read there to catch up with any ongoing discussions.
Before I sign off, I invite new list members, and those who have not yet
done so, to introduce themselves and their history of sexuality interests
to the list at large.
Lesley
histsex-owner@listbot.com
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah: the only place on the web that
tells you how to make sheepgut condoms
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Book announcement
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:03:45 +0100
Now out in the UK (and shortly in the USA):
Franz X Eder, Lesley Hall, and Gert Hekma, Sexual Cultures in Europe: =
National Histories, and Sexual Cultures in Europe: Themes in Sexuality, =
Manchester University Press (distributed by St Martin's Press in the =
USA), hardback and paperback
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Lesley Hall" <lesleyah@primex.co.uk>
Subject: Re unsubscribing
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 16:11:52 +0100
>From Philippa Levine:
Dear HistSex Members:
I'm glad Lesley posted her Admin Notice about unsubscribing -- since =
this
gives me a chance to warn you about the difficulties of doing so. I
allegedly unsubscribed (with difficulty) about a fortnight ago, was
assured by the listbot listserv that I was unsubscribed, and arrived =
back
yesterday evening to a fair bit of histsex mail. The system clearly =
isn't
working, and I for one am stymied about how to get off the list. I'm =
going
away again in a few days so really don't want to be receiving mail. =
Anyone
have any clever ideas about how to make a computer-generated list listen
to a plea for unsubscribing?
Philippa Levine
I'd be very grateful if anyone has any useful ideas on this, though will =
also take it up with human support staff who must operate somewhere at =
Lisbot.
Lesley Hall
lesleyah@primex.co.uk
___________________________________________________________________
From: JNKATZ1@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 22:39:47 EDT
Subject: Katz Introduction
Hi, folks. Jonathan Ned Katz here. I never had time earlier to introduce
myself, though I've asked a few questions.
I am a self-educated, community-based, independent scholar and historian
whose most recent book, The Invention of Heterosexuality (1995), was a
history of the heterosexual norm. In 1976, my Gay American History: Lesbians
and Gay Men in the U.S.A., provided a first glimpse into the hidden history
of same-sex lust and love in that country; I followed up with Gay/Lesbian
Almanac (1983). My new book on men's sexual and affectional intimacies with
men in the 19th century U.S. will be published in the Spring of 2000 by Simon
& Schuster. My research has never been supported by a major grant.
I have authored two theater pieces based on historical documents. "Coming
Out!" was produced in New York in 1972, the first play to express a new
post-Stonewall gay and lesbian consciousness. A second theater piece,
"Comrades and Lovers," about Walt Whitman, was produced in the 1990s in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, Chicago, and Atlanta.
I have delivered entertaining, thought-provoking talks at numerous colleges
and universities, and I attempt to present original, pathbreaking research
and interpretions in a popular form, accessible and interesting to a general
audience.
Jonathan
jnkatz1@aol.com
___________________________________________________________________
From: MillerJimE@aol.com
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 23:11:57 EDT
Subject: Re: Oscar Wilde - slang again
James Buchanan, US President before Abraham Lincoln, had a lover by
the name of William King who was quite flamboyant and as much out of the
closet as one could be at the time. He gained several nick-names in his
life, including "First Lady" (for his relationship with James Buchanan),
"Miss Nancy" and "Aunt Fancy". Among other nick-names he was known as
"Queen", a play on his name King. This isn't quite the modern use of
"queen", but it is a possible predecessor.
Jim Miller
In a message dated 05/25/1999 6:51:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
chris@chriswillis.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< 2) Queens
Was "queen" used to descibe homosexual men in the 1890s? One of the
newspaper reports makes a rather odd reference to Wilde living "near Queen
Street" rather than giving his correct address of Tite Street. >>
___________________________________________________________________
From: "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Oscar Wilde - slang again
Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 22:29:25 +0100
The Oxford English Dictionary is very good for dating literary language
-- the language used by the mainstream-- but it needs to be used with
care regarding non-literary language. Its editors chose not to use the
kinds of printed sources, such as trial records and criminal
biographies, where slang would be recorded. The editors of the OED have
commented on this gap (sorry I can't find the citation), and they aim
to include many more historical examples of slang in the newest edition
(due in ten years' time?). The OED's record of "first citations" for
gay slang is wholly untrustworthy.
The use of "queen" among effeminate male homosexuals goes back to the
1720s in England. Many mollies (gay men) during this period gave each
other "Maiden Names", i.e. feminine nicknames. One blacksmith went by
the Maiden Name of "Queen Irons" (incidentally, *not* spelled "quean").
(Other mollies included the butcher John Cooper who went by the name
Princess Seraphina (a trial involving him demonstrates that he was a
drag queen); and the Duchess of Gloucester, a butcher.) (These come
from a source which I don't think was used by the OED: James Dalton, _A
Genuine Narrative of All the Street Robberies Committed since October
last, by James Dalton, And his Accomplices_, London, 1728, pp. 37-40.
See also Robert Holloway, _The Phoenix of Sodom_ (London, 1813), pp.
12-13, also probably not cited by the OED.) In 1699 a molly was
satirized as if he were a ship named the "Queen of Sheba". Alexander
Pope in his Heroic Epistle _Bounce to Fop_ heaps abuse upon the
effeminate bisexual Lord Hervey: "The Motley Race of Hervey queenies". A
satire
of 1726 records the effeminate conversations between the mollies,
including this greeting from one to another: "Where have you been you
saucy Queen? If I catch you strouling and
caterwauling, I'll beat the milk out of your breast I will so." (_Hell
upon Earth_, London, 1729, p. 43.). Again, the spelling is "Queen", not
"quean". In the trial records and newspaper accounts I can trace about
five mollies who called themselves "Aunt", which I would include in the same
category as "queen".
In 1810 a molly went by the
name "Queen of Bohemia". I would suspect that "queen" was already becoming
popular in the 1720s, though by no means as pervasive as in the 1920s.
In France in the 1720s, effeminate male homosexuals referred to one
another as "sister"; I don't know if they used some form of "reine". Fanny
and Stella, the two drag queens arrested in 1870, called one another
"sisters" and they used the word "drag", which was fairly well known at that
time, but I cannot recall if they referred to themselves or their friends as
"queens".
Regarding "queer", there are some ambiguous references to "queer
fellows" before the nineteenth century, but this seems to be part of
the Rogues' Lexicon, in which "queer" meant the opposite of "straight",
i.e. unrespectable rather than homosexual. But I think it began to have
the homosexual meaning fairly early in the nineteenth century rather than
later. One
instance in which this usage seems intentional occurred in Canada in
1838: George Markland, Inspector General of Upper Canada, was observed
making assignations with young soldiers in the Toronto government
building in the evenings. A cleaning lady overheard noises from his
room that convinced her he was having sexual connections with a woman,
but was surprised to see a drummer boy emerge; when Markland emerged
she said to him, "Well Sir these are queer doings from the bottom to
the top." Other cases can be found before the 1890s when "queer goings on"
is the phrase
specifically used to refer to illicit sexual relations between men.
Regarding Guardsmen, an interesting notice appeared in London's _The
Daily Advertiser_ on 30 April 1772:
Whereas on Tuesday Night last, between the hours of Eight
and Ten, A Gentleman left with a Centinel belonging to
Whitehall Guard, a Guinea and a half, and a Metal Watch
with two Seals, the one a Cypher, the other a Coat of Arms,
a Locket, and a Pistol Hook. The Owner may have it again by
applying to the Adjutant of the first Battalion of the
first Regiment of foot-Guards at the Savoy Barracks, and
paying for this Advertisement.
The gentleman, who had tried to make love to the guardsman and given
him his watch, was Garrick's friend Isaac Bickerstaff, who shortly
thereafter fled to the Continent. It shocked Dr Johnson. The scandal
provoked some convoluted satires, e.g.:
Whom fliest thou, frantic youth, and whence thy fear?
Blest had there never been a grenadier!
Unhappy Nyky [nickname for Bickerstaff], by what frenzy seiz'd,
Coulds't thou with such a martial thing be pleas'd?
What, tho' thyself a gentle horse-marine*,
Couldst thou with foot-soldiers at land be seen?
(*Nyky is an half-pay officer of marines. The
term horse-marine is well known to some kind
of sailors. Mod vir mod foemina.)
Roscius defends his lover's taste:
And yet, ah why should Nyky thus be blam'd?
Of manly love ah! why are men asham'd?
A new red-coat, fierce cock and killing air
Will captivate the most obdurate fair;
Yet slight the cause of Nyky's late mishap;
Nyk but mistook the colour of the cap:
A common errour, frequent in the Park,
Where love is apt to stumble in the dark.
I'm not sure how early Guardsmen came to be known for their homosexual
services. Certainly they were famous for it by the beginning of the
nineteenth century. Dark-eyed Leonora, a Drummer of the Guards, was a
favourite at the Vere Street male brothel that was raided in 1810.
Another Drummer of the Guards, a Mr Ponder, also offered his services
to customers of the establishment. Two of the men arrested in the raid
were Thomas White, a Drummer of the Guards in a Portugal Regiment, age
16, and John Newbolt (or Newball) Hepburn, an Ensign in a West India
Regiment, age 42; both men were hanged for sodomy.
By the mid-nineteenth century, several Guards barracks were in
effect houses of male prostitution. Why Guardsmen? Because they were
stationed in London and had no duties to speak of. And their uniform was
very striking: even Jane Austen comments on it.
--
Rictor Norton
mailto:norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk
London's mollies: http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/molly.htm
___________________________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 14:27:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gregory {Greg} Downing <gd2@is2.nyu.edu>
Subject: Re: Oscar Wilde - slang again
At 10:29 PM 5/25/99, "Rictor Norton" <norton@rictor.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>The Oxford English Dictionary is very good for dating literary language
>-- the language used by the mainstream-- but it needs to be used with
>care regarding non-literary language. Its editors chose not to use the
>kinds of printed sources, such as trial records and criminal
>biographies, where slang would be recorded. The editors of the OED have
>commented on this gap (sorry I can't find the citation), and they aim
>to include many more historical examples of slang in the newest edition
>(due in ten years' time?). The OED's record of "first citations" for
>gay slang is wholly untrustworthy.
>
I'm not sure that arguing generalizations changes the discussion with regard
to any particular specific usage -- even *if* the generalizations involved
are accurate. So, on to the specifics...
>The use of "queen" among effeminate male homosexuals goes back to the
>1720s in England. Many mollies (gay men) during this period gave each
>other "Maiden Names", i.e. feminine nicknames. One blacksmith went by
>the Maiden Name of "Queen Irons" (incidentally, *not* spelled "quean").
This isn't evidence that "queen" as a common noun meant "gay" in 1720. You
need a citation where "queen" as a common noun is used in the sense of
"homosexual male." All of a word's meanings are ultimately *related* in some
way or another, but this does *not* mean that all of a word's meanings/uses
are *identical*, or that all of the later-emerging senses are somehow
already in existence inside of or behind the earlier senses. To make such an
argument is ultimately to argue that a word develops no new senses after it
first comes into existence -- i.e., it is to argue that semantic development
and change do not exist.
>(Other mollies included the butcher John Cooper who went by the name
>Princess Seraphina (a trial involving him demonstrates that he was a
>drag queen); and the Duchess of Gloucester, a butcher.)
All of this is germane to the subject-matter of the list, but it doesn't
demonstrate the existence of a common noun "queen" meaning "gay" in 1720.
>(These come
>from a source which I don't think was used by the OED: James Dalton, _A
>Genuine Narrative of All the Street Robberies Committed since October
>last, by James Dalton, And his Accomplices_, London, 1728, pp. 37-40.
>See also Robert Holloway, _The Phoenix of Sodom_ (London, 1813), pp.
>12-13, also probably not cited by the OED.) In 1699 a molly was
>satirized as if he were a ship named the "Queen of Sheba". Alexander
>Pope in his Heroic Epistle _Bounce to Fop_ heaps abuse upon the
>effeminate bisexual Lord Hervey: "The Motley Race of Hervey queenies". A
>satire
>of 1726 records the effeminate conversatio