Balancing History With Accuracy

I think it depends what you mean by that. Historically, there was no "LGBT+" community. Male homosexuals had an easier time than female homosexuals - in many periods, women could barely have male lovers, never mind female lovers.

There are common beliefs that the Greeks and Romans tolerated homosexuality, but that's not really true. You can't really use modern labels to describe their views on sexuality, which were very different from ours.

If you have any sources, I'd be interested to read them.

 

Actually, the concept of male homosexuality being tolerated, even celebrated (in some circles) in some eras of history isn't so far off, so I'd have to disagree with you there. Michael Rocke's Forbidden Friendships takes a wonderfully refreshing view on homosexuality in Renaissance-era Florence, for example, and Rocke's work is about as academic as you can get. I read it a few years back.

Gay Life and Culture: A World History, is also a decent read. Don't get me wrong, these books don't paint the pretty picture that some gay folks might like to see. However, I think history was a little more accepting of homosexuality than common narratives might have you believe. If you listened to some people, any time before the 1990s, gays were immediately jailed and executed for their horrific crimes of... being gay.

But this simply isn't true. It's not like it was all fun and games for gay people; there was plenty of bigotry and violent hatred to go around. I'm simply suggesting that the picture might not be as brutal as one would think. That you may, actually, be able to write a historically accurate, LGBT friendly book. It's not exactly a bold assumption, and it's backed by the facts.

 

The problem here is that the facts don't support a modern interpretation of an LGBT friendly society. While history certainly wasn't as oppressive as the common narrative suggests, neither was it particularly tolerant. One has to be careful of generalising anecdotal evidence. Just because Elagabalus was probably trans, that doesn't mean the entire Roman Empire was LGBT friendly.

I don't disagree with you that things weren't as bad as normally made out, but I don't believe it's particularly accurate to describe a pre-modern society as LGBT friendly either. Certainly not to the extent that the OP is implying he/she wants.

 

I never claimed that they did.

I never said that was the case. I just think that if the OP adjusted their expectations and vision a little bit, they may still be able to write an LGBT-friendly story based in ancient times that isn't totally hopeless.

After all, the idea of gay sex acts happening at Pagan festivals in Ancient Rome didn't come from nowhere; that stuff actually happened, from what we can gather. One could surely, confidently, write a historically accurate LGBT-friendly story based in ancient times.

Once, again, will it compare to what LGBT-friendly means today? No, of course not. But it can be done.

 

I think using the term "LGBT-friendly" implies a modern interpretation.

A society more tolerant of homosexuality (I'm not going to say LGBT+, as that in itself is a modern creation) is possible, but if you're writing for an audience that is looking for LGBT friendly fiction and you want to maintain historical accuracy, then you're necessarily going to have to disappoint them.

 

I agree in many cases, but I want to focus in on the question: "if it isn't historically accurate, then why not set it in the present day?"

To me the answer is art. Fiction is a mirror through which we see our lives reflected, no matter where the story is set. People are the same. We can use history, outer space, the bottom of the ocean, or a box of toys (as in Toy Story); it's all the same, all people.

So why does the setting matter? It's a stage, a set of rules and constraints that make the story possible. We can change those to produce a different effect. A common example is fantasy, which takes real historical settings and blurs them together into something that feels entirely unique. We also have alternative history and various works, especially comedy, that alter the past for satire or to make a broader point.

One classic example would be Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The setting is medieval, but we have all sorts of anachronisms that create the humor. We can also see this in the recent Robin Hood movie (2018 or 2019) where they intentionally include modern tropes to give the story an incredibly unique feel. Its rotten tomatoes score was:t so good but I for one loved it.

I totally agree that if historical accuracy is what you're going for, it's important to be accurate. But I also think that we can do a lot of interesting things by changing the past in our stories. The point when doing so is not to explore the past so much as to blend it with the present and future, and see through that the universal stories that never go away.

 

Eh, not really. I don't see any reason to pigeon-hole the term. One could describe a period in history that was LGBT-friendly, considering the times.

Once again, not really. Attitudes toward homosexuality in ancient times were far more tolerant than one would expect, as I've mentioned earlier.

You could write a realistic, historically accurate LGBT story that doesn't involved anyone being killed or hanged or jailed. It's purely possible. It was even celebrated openly in some circles in some periods of history.

I'm not sure who you're trying to convince here... me, the OP, or yourself. If you're wanting to write a historically accurate story where there were LGBT parades and things like that, then you're right, they'd have to disappoint the readers.

But you could easily write a historically accurate story that tells a tale of an LGBT couple, or even community, that doesn't involved the violent hatred or bigotry that we saw in some periods of history. There were actually all-male monastic communities in the Middle Ages where homosexuality thrived. And there are some facts that suggest that the church didn't even really care.

So, I get what you're trying to say, but the facts simply don't support your opinion. I think the OP needs to be realistic in their expectations, and maybe change their vision a bit, but besides that, you can write a historically accurate LGBT-friendly book.

 

No, you can't. Applying modern labels to history is a violation of historical discipline.

I'm sorry, no. In "ancient" times, the attitudes were not "tolerant", not in a modern sense of the word. As I said before, their views on sexuality were different from ours, and can't be defined so easily with modern labels.

Of course you can. Not all pre-modern societies punished homosexuality with death - but some certainly did.

I don't need convincing. It's not my book.

If you want to set a story about a same sex couple in a monastic community, of course you can. But it would be a same sex couple, NOT an LGBT couple. Again, you're making the mistake of applying a modern label to a historical situation.

I'm afraid I disagree. I think your opinion is incorrect. Other than the aforementioned misapplication of modern labels, you're taking the exception as the rule. The Church began to preach against and prosecute homosexual acts in the eleventh century, which is exactly the time period the OP's setting is in. And it was entirely one thing for people in ecclesiastic circles or higher rungs of society to engage in homosexual acts, it was another thing entirely for commonfolk to do it. A society that frowns upon sex out of wedlock isn't going to tolerate men or women living in sin, and when you're talking about a society where the majority of the people are based in small, rural communities rather than being urban, and where everyone know everyone else, a tolerant attitude towards same sex relationships is going to be the exception, not the norm.

 

LBGT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. Though there have been times where these things have been less persecuted, very few cultures have been okay with all at once and the ones that were aren't recent. Even Ancient Greece, probably one of the more open cultures, still had very specific roles and guidelines for men and women. Though homosexual relationships weren't an issue, your role in that relationship could an have effect on someones social standing. There are recorded accounts where men were insulted and dismissed by implying that they were pregnant with whoever's child because being a bottom meant you were weak and lower class. Yeah there were times when was better, and it probably wasn't as bad as people like to imagine, but to say they were "LGBT friendly" would be a vast overstatement, especially in medieval Europe. We're living in one of the most LGBT friendly times and places in recent history and it's still not easy being part of that community and you're talking about a time when people could be, and were, executed for that.

 

Listen, I'm not here to debate with you. This isn't the section of the forum for that anyway. Plenty of place in certain historical periods were tolerant of and even celebrated homosexuality. Even for "commonfolk." And not every society in history cared about sex out of wedlock. You seem to be very obsessed with the modern narrative that concerns Abrahamic religious societies (and even in said societies, the picture isn't as bad as you're trying to say, see Rediscovering Gay History: Archetypes of Gay Love in Christian History). Which doesn't in any way shape or form, encompass all of world history. Arguing about the term LGBT is only arguing semantics, and misses the point entirely.

Read some Michael Rocke. Read some John Boswell. Then get back to me, after you'd done some research, in a personal message. History simply doesn't agree with you. The facts simply don't agree with you. Until then believe what you want.

To the OP, good luck with your story.

 

No, you're reading what YOU want to read into my replies. I don't care about "Abrahamic religious societies", I care about history. If you want to claim that LGBT relationships were "celebrated", whether for high society or "commonfolk", you're going to have to show sources. So far you've mentioned one book that talks about relationships in Renaissance Italy. You imply that covers the entire spectrum of Renaissance society, and I'll be very surprised if it says anything of the sort.

And you're still using the term "LGBT". Show me ONE historical usage of the term and I'll shut up. Otherwise, you're demonstrating that you're projecting YOUR interpretation onto a historical phenomena. End of.

Boswell's book "Christianity, Social tolerance and Homosexuality" focuses on the Church (you know, that Abrahamic religious society that you accused me of being obsessed with), and does NOT seem to cover society as a whole. Show me some primary sources that show how homosexuality was celebrated amongst common people, if that's what you're claiming.

 

Once again, I'm not here to debate with you. Your stance of, "I'm right until you prove me wrong" is duly noted, and not at all conducive to any sort of real conversation. You seem to be married to your ideas; you have a vested interest in this view that history was brutal to homosexuals. And while that has some truth to it, it's not at all a complete picture.

I'm actually well read on the subject we're talking about, mainly because I've researched Christianity's history quite a bit. When you've done some research, get back to me, in a private message. Thanks. Now let's stop polluting this thread with a meaningless debate that's going nowhere.

The fact is, history has a been a lot more tolerant and accepting of homosexuality than you would like to think. I'm not here to prove what history has already proven.

Clearly, you feel the need to have the last word here. Enjoy it.

Have a good one.

 

Then why are you?

You know, all of what you say here could equally be applied to you.

You're engaging in what we call "appeal to authority". You're making huge assertions that I'm challenging you to prove, with primary sources. You kept using modern labels to describe historical phenomena. You clearly have a bias on the subject. That you say you've researched Christianity means very little. That suggests to me that you've approached the subject with the intent of proving Christianity just wasn't as bad as people say it was. Wrong way round to study history.

We're not talking about homosexuality within Christianity (there's that Abrahamic religious society you keep bringing up), we're talking about same sex relationships within society as a whole. Unless the OP is writing a novel set in an ecclesiastical setting, that's what he wants to know. I asked you to prove that general society "celebrated" (your word) homosexuality. NOT small sections of high society, not religious communes, but general society. That is what the OP needs to know for his setting. You either can't, or won't.

That's an excuse for not providing proof. If it's been proven by history as you say, then providing sources for the above would be quite easy. And it would help the OP in his research as well.

Pot, kettle, black I'm afraid.

 

Women were also considered much less likely to do anything so were not subject to much suspicion of that kind-although historical paranoia of female sexuality with men is well recorded. Men were much more likely to be accused and more likely to be executed under laws. Sodomy after all applied more to anal sex than homosexuality in generality, although it was understood in the early modern period to apply to all forms of sexual deviance: what they would call contrary to nature. Devious as a word arises from these sorts of ideas before it became associated more with cunning.
In regards to medieval setting, I would say to @OP the key element is difference. Homosexuality was never accepted in christian medieval and early modern europe, but it was not often thought of. They were not so wary of it, the 20th century created a much mlre active and specific homophobia movement than ever before. They were used to heternormativity just as marriage was heavily normalised. Sex was not as choice based so they expected the norms to be followed. Lgbt stuff therefore has an advantage compared to the AIDS period in terms of flying under the radar. You might just be be executed or murdered if you are caught, but your less likely to be so. Especially given historical standards of PDA. Men kissing each other, even lightly on the lips, leaning on each other's shoulders, hugging, even sharing a bed under the right circumstances where okay.
Medieval and early modern europe was what we call a homosocial society, where society is built largely upon relations between men. In such a society, friend circles were generally gender segregated. People had large intimate groups of same gender friends but women and men interacting was family, professional or courtship. Offically. Usually, of course cross gender friendship did exist. Two areaswhere the sexual and gender friendship boundaries tended to be blurred or violated is courts and rural areas. Courts are especially active interactive spaces with professional men and women together, though rarely in the same job, and the social expectations could be crushing but also provide a pretext to manipulate perception. In the same way rural spaces had lower expectations than most places and little accountability so you could be more free-ride, although the perception of sodomy or the perception of dallying too much with women would see you branded as sinful anywhere if it held enough weight.
Also status is a thing. People with power can get away with things. Always true always has been. For example James VI and I in the early modern period had some suspiciously intimate relationships with men, and a generally gayish manner but it was mostly a feature in political critiques and a lot of people seem to have looked the other way on that question. That kind of dynamic is relevant. Also powerful people can protect others. Anthony Bacon was actually convicted of sodomy, and accessory to more sodomy from his page, which could get you burned. He was saved by Henry of Navarre, later Henry IV of France and ran to England. He wasn't punished there either. Two interesting examples of how it can work that appear in my own novel. Later period to yours, but relevant frameworks of survival.

 

I'm not here to have an argument (it's pointless) but - as a person who studies Middle Ages - I want to add a thing and thanks for the cited user, there's no need to make longer preface.

The most important thing here is the primary sources. The view on sexual relationships of any kind has changed so far from the Middle Ages to the modern times, even in the most traditional societies and I'm afraid that writing from own experience about even heterosexual marriage in the Middle Ages could make worse historical inaccuracy than about King Arthur being real, at least from my point of view. The problem with homosexuality is even more complicated and difficult.

These people thought in way different categories even when they're homosexuals. The same with ancient Greece - you may praise them for democracy or tolerance for same-sex relationships, but I'm afraid that they still wouldn't understand our way of thinking and so we do. Actually, the projection of our way of thinking to the past is one of the worse mistakes that every person who loves history should be aware of.

My tip is to read primary sources. Not necessarily about sex or homosexualism, at least start form something easier. I think that you need to understand their point of view about - for example - benefits of bloodletting or eating carrot to write about more difficult things.

 

Which is a good idea until you remember that the story takes place in 1150 and realize that not many people are adept at reading Early Middle English.

 

I thought that it's quite obvious that non-professionals are allowed to read translations to modern English. There are plenty of them, even translations of medieval letters. What is more, there is no need to limit yourself only to English sources. Medieval culture was universal and French sources, for example, are equally good, as the thinking was identical.

 

Or at least fairly close on most matters.

 

I would say briefly on the labels thing that though I would say they have different mentalities and that does matter, the reality of people's actual feelings is more central and I do believe the way we have sexual attraction hasn't changed that much. So we can apply our labels to describe something they refused to understand. And given medieval Europe was generally extremely heteronormative, certainly later on as this formalised, the idea of gayness does exist in a sort of a sense under a sodomite other category which they sometimes uses specifically for male same sex as in Anthony Bacon's case.
But yeah I would again advise context matters, like reputation and access to power, and that day-to-day their actually pretty unwary of this kind of stuff. So those elements are how you allow your characters to get away with it.
Given OP's original idea was they can get married, well, IDK how to do that balanced.

 

Yeah, but translations aren't the original document or even a faithful reproduction of it. One to one translations are rarely possible which means there's going to be some artistic license on the part of the translator which, strictly speaking, makes them a secondary source. Mostly having fun with my earlier statement, but it does bring up that people do have to be careful with what sources they should trust when doing research.

Not really English and French culture was actually very different until 1066 when William the Conqueror brought French culture and language to the area, that culture influence was also fairly isolated to noble society and only had a trickle down influence on the peasantry. That's why we use Anglo-Saxon words to curse, and French words for food. This isn't even taking in to account that the majority of Frances southern neighbour, Spain, was largely Muslim at that time, the fact that the medieval era was around 1000 years long, and England wasn't a part of the mainland so trends and ideas generally took longer to move to and from the rest of the world.

 

But if it's in the 1100's and focusing on high-level stuff it would be fairly French, and indeed French would be the most common language, with some Latin. But yes.

 

I am actually doing it as a series and moving it back to just after William invaded (for the first book). It is also a tabletop setting I am working on so part of the reason I want it to be LGBT friendly is so that if I decide to run a campaign in it the players don't have to make their characters straight or force the characters to keep it a secret.

 

Have you read the Satyricon? Lgbt was a common thing in ancient Rome. Not that everyone were homossexual, nor that it was the ideal or so much accepted (although it wasn't rejected in the same ways either), but it was common and part of the culture, and had its place.

The Satyricon is supposed to have taken place in the first half to mid of the 1st century aD. Toward the second half of the second century Christianity would be silently spreading, and these practices would begin to be a little more rejected (in general, because culture and views were beginning to change, from bottom to top). (One can notice that even the approach of sex in youth for men began to change to have celibacy before marriage as an ideal even among traditional non-Christian Romans. Stoicism took advantage of this too.) As was said above, the upper classes usually did as they'd like with less consequences in any period of history.

Throughout history you can spot cases, but with Christianity it became a non-ideal cultural practice, though, as I said, cases are cases, and you can choose to write about affairs at any point in history. The detail is that according to class/person/situation, it'll have to be hidden, it'd not be generally accepted and to be historically accurate you'll have to play with this.

In ancient Rome (which includes all of Europe, if you think about the Empire...) traditional Roman 'lay' culture (labled as "paganism" by most Christians then and today) began to be abolished with the entering of Christianity in the ruling classes (particularly with Roman emperors being Christians). The first Roman emperor to be a Christian (toward the end of his life) was Constantinus. Roman religion and lay culture began to be severely persecuted by the time of Theodosius, about a century after Constantinus. After Constantinus' sons' rule, there was one (last Constantinian) called Iulianus (Julian) known as "apostate" (Julian the apostate), who was one brief attempt to return with the traditional Roman religion, which was very brief, and, well, he died soon in battle and so did his successor. Then came Valentinianus, who was already into the Christian culture and thought. After two successors, I guess, there came Theodosius, and with him the definite end of the traditional Roman culture and definite predominance of the Christian way of life, which abhors homossexuality as an unnatural behaviour. (Unnatural, perhaps it is, but definitely not uncultural, and in these terms, within culture, pretty natural, one can say, in a perspective of primitive societies where strength gives right over sex, family, lives.)

The Satyricon is an interesting text because homossexuality is as trivial to the main character as any simple daily custom. He has his boyfriend, he loves him, he's very sad when the boy leaves him... The relationship is handled as common as if it were a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. It's stunning, very interesting evidence of a different society, a different cultural pattern.