Kevin's Watch

Gay Unions Sanctioned in Medieval Europe

Mon Aug 27, 12:00 PM ET

Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.

Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.

For example, he found legal contracts from late medieval France that referred to the term "affrèrement," roughly translated as brotherment. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe, Tulchin said.

In the contract, the "brothers" pledged to live together sharing "un pain, un vin, et une bourse," (that's French for one bread, one wine and one purse). The "one purse" referred to the idea that all of the couple's goods became joint property. Like marriage contracts, the "brotherments" had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses, Tulchin explained.

Yeah, scarcely a new phenomenon. Wasn't uncommon in feudal Japan either IIRC.

--A

But such unions were never suggested to be exact equivalents to male-female monogamy.

As I've oft repeated, acceptance of civil unions is much higher than acceptance of identifiying those unions as the exact equivalent of husband and wife marriage.

If people want to try to conjure up a historical precedent they'll need to find an occasion where some society regarded both kinds of unions as identical in nature.

I don't think the part quoted really shows homosexual relationships in terms of love and sexuality either. Yes both people involved were of the same sex, but it looks a little bit like a business arrangement as described anyways.

Not that I'd be surprised if in the middle ages there might have been truely homosexual relationships recognised, there was a lot more social invention (for lack of a better term) during the middle ages than is often credited.

'Conjure up' is a most appropriate choice of words.

Looks a lot to me like people trying to justify their beliefs and lifestyles and engaging in revision of history to achieve historical approval of their present choices.

It's not like they're the first ones to do this.

I like GK Chesterton's idea that we should stick to first-hand documents and avoid historians pretty much altogether.

As to progress, it is possible in any direction, including a destructive one. If we disagree about the direction, we will also disagree about the degree of progress.

Of course, it's in France. (Funny how they never explicitly say that )

Always thought those baggetts (sp?) were implying something!