Large 1 Kara Large Dr.

Lidh ENG 211 08 December 2008 When observing same sex relationships between men throughout history, it is easy to believe that these relationships have become more open over time, as society has reached a more modern, liberal mindset. Yet, even today there is still a taboo associated with same sex relationships, and these homosexual behaviors are often labeled as immoral. As art often imitates life is it easy to observe the taboo of same sex relationships in the context of literature. How many works are written about male lovers compared to heterosexual couples? How often are the heroes of works sexually attracted to men? However, there was a time when same sex relationships conveyed no sense of shame or disgust, when people were open without fear of criticism. What then caused the change that transitioned same sex relationships from openness to suppression? Again, by examining literature, specifically English literature from the Middle Ages to the 18th Century, the source of the homosexuality hush is clearly the Christian church. When poets began singing the praises of God, they stopped openly detailing erotic encounters between men. As the Bible became the new source of inspiration, references to same sex relationships were either slyly inserted into works or used as insults. And when the Church loosened its hold on England, writers alluded to homosexual behavior much more freely.

Large 2 Thus, as the prominence of the Christian church in England changed over time, so too did the portrayal of homosexuality in English literature. When mighty warriors were deified, when battlegrounds were sacred, and bountiful treasure troves were venerated, homosexuality wasnt considered shameful or immoral. In the early Middle Ages (ca. 673-1010), men could be with other men sexually, without fear of prosecution because homosexuality was not yet a controversial issue (Frantzen 136). During this time, Christianity was a new concept and had not yet been completely accepted or formalized by the mostly Pagan masses. The society was in the midst of a religious transition and followed a moral code based on the ethics of battle, not on Biblical principles (Greenblatt 30). Because society had no religious reason to fear or despise homosexuality, homoerotic encounters were not viewed with any evil emphasis. Also, homosexual behaviors were not equated with effeminacy. Strong, burly warriors could be attracted to other men and remain powerful in society; men who were effeminate, whether or not they were homosexual, were considered weak, which was the greatest sin of this period (Frantzen 90). While the aforementioned societal practices of this age have been studied and estimated by historians, few examples of same sex behaviors exist in early literature. Most literature of this time was either oral (most of which disappeared from history) or written by men of the Church. The latter class of literature was purposed in integrating Christianity into the life of the Anglo-Saxons, and thus, would have few examples of homosexuality. However, some evidence of openly homosexual behavior does exist in what few pieces of literature from the Middle Ages have survived.

Large 3 One of the most prominent displays of affection between two men can be found in one section of the epic poem, Beowulf. According to Beowulf translator Frederick Rebsamen, The unique manuscript of Beowulf [was] produced about 1000 A.D. after the Church had already begun to take form in England (xi). However, the story of Beowulf circulated long before its manuscript was formed, perhaps even as far back as the late seventh century (Rebsamen xii). Because the story takes place in the early Middle Ages, the values and ideals of the early Middle Ages, including openness regarding homoeroticism, can be found within the tale of the mighty warrior. According to Loyola University English professor and gender studies scholar Allen J. Frantzen in Before the Closet, Beowulf describes two of the most manly men in Old English literature Hrothgar, the aged Danish king whose kingdom is collapsing, and Beowulf, the young hero who rescues it (92). Throughout the epic poem, the two men form a bond, especially after Beowulf secures the safety of Hrothgars kingdom. This bond seems almost like one between father and son, until Beowulfs departure. The language of the unknown poet who compiled Beowulf used to describe the departure is heavy with emotion and hints of homoeroticism, which is still evident in Seamus Heaneys translation of the poem. And so the good and gray-haired Dane, that highborn king, kissed Beowulf and embraced his neck, then broke down in sudden tears. Two forebodings disturbed him in his wisdom, but one was stronger:

Large 4 nevermore would they meet each other face to face. And such was his affection that he could not help being overcome: his fondness for the man was so deep-founded, it warmed his heart and wound the heartstrings tight in his breast. (1870-1880)

Hrothgars behavior is these lines can simply be characterized as friendly, or even fatherly. After all, it was common for men to kiss and embrace in the Middle Ages without any homosexual connotations. However, when kissing and embracing are mentioned along with fondness that is so deep-founded that it warm[s] [the] heart Hrothgars feelings seem more than fatherly. Various translations have even interpreted Hrothgar feeling something stronger than fondness. In Howell D. Chickering Jr.s translation of the aforementioned lines Hrothgar experiences a deep-felt longing for the beloved man that burn[s] in his blood (159). While Chickerings interpretation seems much more passionate than Heaneys the actual Old English word, langa, which describes Hrothgars emotion is defined as longing and unsatisfied craving (Clark Hall). Despite different translations, even the actual word suggests passion. This passion that Hrothgar expresses before Beowulfs departure is unique; Hrothgar never expresses equivalent emotion towards any other character. When Grendel slaughters Hrothgars closest friend schere, Hrothgar only briefly addresses his loss and

Large 5 lacks the passion he feels towards Beowulf. Dick Ringler translates Hrothgars response to his comrades untimely death as the following: schere is dead, the older brother of Yrmenlaf, my counselor, confidant, and closet friend the faithful comrade who fought at my side in bloody battles when boar standards clashed, tossing in tumult; whatever a good soldier should be, such was schere! (2646-2658)

There is no mention of longing or burning for schere. Clearly, Hrothgar and schere had a deep friendship, as Hrothgar mentions, but the eulogy, while mournful, lacks the sexually charged language with which Hrothgars emotions towards Beowulf are described. Thus, if

Large 6 Hrothgar only regarded Beowulf as a friend, the language would be similar to that found describing schere complementary, yet void of passion. Also, according to Allen J. Frantzen, Old English texts that discuss relations between fathers and sons offer no models for Hrothgars response. Affection between fathers and sons is not commonplace in Old English verse (97). Therefore, the feelings that Hrothgar expresses upon Beowulfs departure appear to stem from homosexual desires. Frantzen supports this assertion stating, the embrace and kiss the men share is one of the most impressive and moving displays of same sex love in Anglo-Saxon literatureit unites two men, at least one of whom deeply loves the other (94). While Frantzen believes that it is certain that Hrothgar loved Beowulf, the kiss seemed to have had a lasting impact on the life of the title hero as well. Never was there any mention in the epic poem of Beowulfs wife; he had no offspring to inherit his throne after his death, which implies that he may have never had sex with a woman. Additionally, the homoerotic moment of affection between Hrothgar and Beowulf is displayed in front the Geat warriors and Hrothgars Danes. Because there is no mention of negative reaction to Hrothgars kiss, it can be assumed that these strong followers of Hrothgar and Beowulf are not offended by homosexuality, just like most of the society of the time. A great shift occurred in the portrayal and practice of homosexuality, as the Catholic Church began to tighten its grip on medieval England (around 1100 A.D). Although the Catholic Church had been trying to formalize in England since the early Middle Ages, its influence was weak until Henry II began to lay the foundations for English unity during his

Large 7 reign beginning in 1154 A.D. (Cheyney 145). The power of the laws of the Church increased as the Common Law Courts became more consistent (Cheyney 153). According to Frantzen, during this time, Some sexual offenses (including homosexual acts) were included among [sins] seen as especially grave and even sometimes regarded as unmentionable (4). Furthermore, regulations governing sexual conduct were translated into vernacular penitentials, or handbooks of penance (Frantzen 111). The self-abasement required for any homosexual activity was now thoroughly documented, and signified that homosexual activity was no longer tolerated. Where men used to be able to express their homosexual desires openly, they now were punished for any homoerotic displays, including ten years penance for same-sex intercourse (Frantzen 180). Because of the new regulations enforced by the Catholic Church, men began to suppress any homosexual behaviors. Writers also had to suppress homoeroticism in their works. When Geoffrey Chaucer began composing works in the 1300s, the Church practiced strict censorship, and any piece that was found offensive would be prevented from reaching an audience (Coulton 7). Thus, like homosexuality in society, homosexuality in literature was linked with sin. According to the Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture, when sodomy and sodomites are represented in the period's literature, which generally reflects official moral and social doctrine on this issue, they are placed in a negative light. A major work of the time, Geoffrey Chaucers The Canterbury Tales, is evidence that literature portrayed homosexuality unfavorably. Written as a collection of stories told by late fourteenth-century English pilgrims en route to Canterbury Cathedral, The Canterbury

Large 8 Tales uses male homosexual relations and desire as a means to cast moral judgments on and to satirize characters in the text (Boyd 1). In The General Prologue of The Canterbury Tales Chaucer describes the Pardoner as a gelding or a mare (693). By revealing that he is a eunuch and referring to him a female horse, Chaucer discreetly reveals his sexual orientation leaving audiences of the time to despise him, before the Pardoners evil acts are detailed. The Pardoner is not the only character in The Canterbury Tales to be described as homosexual. The Summoner, who also turns out to be wicked, is described as a sodomite. In The General Prologue Chaucer mentions that the Summoner bar to [the Pardoner] a stiff burdoun (675). Translated, this phrase states that the Summoner provided bass accompaniment to the Pardoners love songs. Though this duet could be interpreted as friendly, it is more likely to be a reference to a sexual relationship between the Pardoner and the Summoner because stiff burdoun is innuendo for erect male genitalia. Aside from revealing that the two most corrupt characters in The Canterbury Tales practice homosexual behaviors, Chaucer continues the homophobic attitude of the time in The Parsons Tale. This lengthy tale is meant to be a penitential tract, and includes descriptions and remedies for seven sins. When detailing lechery, the Parson refers to an unkyndely synne [where] a child may nat be conceived (577). This unkyndely synne which is not mentioned by name, is homosexuality. Thus, through describing corrupt characters as homosexuals and listing homosexuality as an unmentionable sin, Chaucer exemplifies the medieval period, which feared and prosecuted homosexuality because of influence from the Catholic Church. While the two periods of literature preceding the Renaissance presented two distinctly different, yet clear, portrayals of homosexuality, there wasnt a concrete attitude

Large 9 concerning homosexuality in the Renaissance, thus portrayals were mixed. After the death of Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth I revoked Catholicism as the official religion of England, in favor of Protestantism (Cheyney 332). Even though Christianity was still prominent in England, it was not the main governing power, and religious figures did not have the final say in homosexuality. Thus, homosexuality was both embraced by some and still feared by many. According to Kenneth Borris in his book Same-Sex Desire in the English Renaissance : A Handbook and Anthology of Contemporary Documents, As the Renaissance sought to renovate the cultural accomplishments of Greek and Roman antiquity, it also renewed awareness of the ancients common homoerotic practices and aspirations (1) However, looking at homosexuality based on the laws of the Renaissance period reveals that there was a stigma surrounding homosexual behaviors. In fact, The sodomy statute 5 Elizabeth, chapter 17, passed by Parliament in 1562-1563, made acts of sexual penetration between males a felony that was punishable by death (An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture). William Shakespeare best merged both attitudes regarding homosexuality in his works. While Shakespeare included many homoerotic characters and situations in his plays, Antonio in Twelfth Night is arguably the most forthright character in speaking about his homoerotic desires (Smith 6). The passage then that best reveals Antonios homoeroticism is his response to Sebastian after rescuing him: I could not stay behind you. My desire, More sharp than fild steel, did spur me forth,

Large 10 My willing love The rather by these argument of fear Set forth in your pursuit. (3.3.6-13)

In this passage, Shakespeare allows Antonio to blatantly reveal his desire, which becomes homoerotic when compared with the phallic sword (fild steel). Therefore, in this passage, Shakespeare portrays the more forthright aspect of homosexuality in the Renaissance. According Georgetown English professor, Bruce R. Smith, The reward for [Antonios] forthrightness, however, is isolation. In the play's final scene, once Sebastian has been betrothed to Lady Olivia, Antonio is scripted to say not a word. In a society that both fostered homosexuality and yet denied homosexual bonds, Antonios response is representative of the suppression of homosexuality. Through the final scene, Shakespeare then embraces the more Christian induced homophobic aspects of Renaissance culture. Because Antonio is not allowed to be with Sebastian, Shakespeare is revealing that men were not permitted to have relationships with each other. By giving Antonio no words in response to Sebastians betrothal, Shakespeare also describes the silencing of the homosexual population by laws influenced by the Church. While Shakespeares portrayal of homosexuality created a middle ground between the depictions of homosexuality in the early Middle Ages and in Chaucers medieval era, it was not the stopping point in history. Attitudes concerning homosexuality continued to be

Large 11 recycled and redeveloped during the Restoration, and people once again became more open sexually, as they were in the Middle Ages. Between the Renaissance and the Restoration in England, there was both a political and religious upheaval that drastically changed the perception of homosexuality. Before the succession of Charles II to the English throne, the country had been under the strict Puritan rule of Oliver Cromwell (Cheyney 464). According to Louis Crompton in Homosexuality and Civilization, With the death of Cromwell, the tide turned against Puritanism, and Restoration England celebrated its overthrow by revolting against sexual repression (395). No one gave into the new sexual liberties more than the nobles of the Restoration period (1660-1689), who took advantage of the tolerant rule of King Charles II and the shrinking presence of the Church of England (Cheyney 469). Homoerotic behavior was no longer taboo to the aristocrats, known as libertines, and they engaged in once unmentionable sexual practices condemned by the Puritans. One particularly bawdy libertine was writer John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester. Being a member of the English court, Rochester fully indulged in sexual liberty and experimentation, and his poems graphically detail the homosexual behaviors that had become accepted during the Restoration (Farmer 1). In one of his most blatantly homoerotic works, The Farce of Sodom Or the Quintessence of Debauchery, Rochester describes the Kingdom of Sodom, ruled by King Bolloximian. When Bolloximian expresses his disgust with having sex with women as their genitalia are clad with the filth of nasty whites (1.1) his advisor, Borastus suggests that the king try sodomy, and suggests several pimps for Bolloximians experimentation. According to Borastus,

Large 12 The choice of buggery, sir, is wanting now. I would advise you, sir, to make a pass Once more at Pockenellos loyal arse. Besides, sir, Pene has so soft a skin Twould tempt a Saint to thrust his pintle in. (1.1)

Clearly, Borastus is an advocate of buggery (sodomy), especially with men. Within the next lines, Tooly, a pimp, reveals that Bolloximian has indulged in homosexual intercourse with him previously and found it enjoyable. When last, good sir, your pleasure did vouchsafe To let poor Toolys hand your pintle chafe, You gently moved it to my arse when lo! Arse did the deed which light hand could not do. (1.1)

Upon recollection of his sexual encounter with Tooly, Bolloximian declares that buggery may be used/Oer all the land (1.1). Homosexual encounters and references continue to be prevalent throughout the play, as the men of Sodom abandon their women and heterosexual intercourse, in favor of sodomy. While the lifestyle of Rochester, and especially his works like Sodom, seem abnormal in an era so far from modernization, according to Southern Illinois University English professor, David M. Vieth, No man was ever more typical of his age than John Wilmot

Large 13 (xvii). Thus, judging from Vieths assertion, because homoerotic practices were a part of Rochesters life, homosexuality was not uncommon during the Restoration, when the Churchs rule had little influence. From Sodom and Gomorrah to Will and Grace, homosexual behaviors have always been present in culture it is attitudes regarding homosexuality that have changed. Tales of strapping warriors and the accounts of sexual libertines in English literature provide a glimpse into why the portrayal of homosexuality has changed throughout history. Once open and unregulated, homoeroticism was soon stifled in practice and in literature by the strengthened Church. Then the Renaissance, with a Church far less mighty, brought a rebirth to English culture and ideas of homosexuality. After a period of suppression through Puritanical doctrine, the Church lost much of its influence and the portrayal of homosexuality came full circle as writers once again described homoeroticism openly. Thus through its varying degrees of power the Church has greatly shaped the portrayal of homosexuality. Without the Churchs influence, homosexuality would have never been scorned, or even viewed with distaste as it is today. Because Christianity has lost its power in Britain, as the nation has become completely secularized, same sex relationships are completely open as they were in Restoration England (Brown 14). Yet hundreds of years away from Renaissance England in 2008, todays American culture has reverted back to attitudes regarding homosexuality present in Shakespeares time. While there are not laws in the United States that prohibit homosexuality, there are laws that restrict a homosexual relationship from being equal to a heterosexual relationship. Although in 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that

Large 14 homosexuals were being discriminated against by their inability to marry and amended the Constitution of the State of Vermont, other states feared this policy of acceptance and pushed for a federal Defense of Marriage Act (Kerstin). Even as recently as November 2008 there has been a shift in attitudes regarding homosexuality, as churches across the nation swayed both traditionally conservative and liberal states (Arizona, California, Florida) to oppose various gay marriage amendments because of Biblical principles. Thus, even in a culture with no official religion, like the United States, the Christian religion still influences opinions concerning homosexuality. Just as todays American society can be equated with Shakespeares Renaissance culture in terms of attitudes regarding homosexuality, various other modern time periods parallel their early English counterparts. The 1950s were reminiscent of medieval England; Christianity, though not the nations official religion, dominated America. Hollywood movie stars, like Rock Hudson, had to hide their homosexuality to be accepted. The United States in the 1960s was more open about homosexuality, yet there were few people who admitted to engaging in a homosexual relationship. The free love generation of the 1970s, which shied away from organized religion, embraced sexual liberty, and the AIDS scare proliferated by the Christian churches in the 1980s once again brought suppression to homosexuality (Eaklor 1-5). Always influenced by the Church, the portrayal and practice of homosexuality undergoes a cycle much like the one found in early English literature. There is a period of openness, followed by suppression, until the two periods merge, causing the cycle to renew. If this pattern continues, in two hundred years from now, how will society feel

Large 15 about homosexuality? Will people be sexually open, like Beowulf or Rochester? Or will those who prefer same sex relationships be forced back into the closet?