Heres another email exchange, from a commentator whose name I shall protect:
Just came across your Erasmus pages...interesting.
But I have to say, your “Erasmus was not gay” section comes across as very comical. Few reputable historians these days take such an absolutist view of human sexuality, and certainly in Europe, where the view of sexuality is a more fluid one, it’s viewed as principally an American obsession.
Erasmus lived almost his entire life in male environments. It would be very surprising indeed if his infatuations and erotic inclinations *weren’t* male directed. And there was a time in his life when he was a haze of obsessional love, to whatever degree you wish to quantify it. The point is, he found it extremely upsetting.
Sorry, but I find your pages a classic case of a militantly heterosexual male scholar with an emotional investment in their subject which prevents them giving the obvious its due....and no amount of argument from anyone is going to persuade you otherwise.
Cheers
Peter
My Response:
>But I have to say, your “Erasmus was not gay” section comes across as very comical.
Is “comical” truly the adjective you wish to use? If you hold my writing in disdain, there are other words that would sharpen your bite.
>Few reputable historians these days take such an absolutist view of human sexuality,
I suppose that I am not a “reputable historian” – I have no interest in reputation, the truth being of greater concern to me. As far as human sexuality goes, I prefer the studies of psychologists and anthropologists to those of historians. And certainly there’s plenty of psychological and anthropological information to suggest that many cultures do indeed take an absolutist view of human sexuality. Establishing homosexuality itself as a capital offense, as has been done in many cultures, is a pretty absolutist approach, wouldn’t you agree?
>and certainly in Europe, where the view of sexuality is a more fluid one, it’s viewed as principally an American obsession.
I am surprised that Europeans are so narrowly educated about the many other cultures on our planet that also take a less fluid view of sexuality. Have Europeans ever heard of a culture known as “Islam”? Quite interesting views on sexuality – you really should have a look at it sometime.
>Erasmus lived almost his entire life in male environments. It would be very surprising indeed if his infatuations and erotic inclinations *weren’t* male directed.
That’s totally speculative. Have you any actual data to back that up? Any writings, comments, declarations – anything at all other than your own inclinations?
>And there was a time in his life when he was a haze of obsessional love, to whatever degree you wish to quantify it. The point is, he found it extremely upsetting.
What time of his life was that? What is a “haze of obsessional love”? And to what degree would YOU quantify it? What precisely did he find “extremely upsetting” – his own feelings, the reactions of others, the social constraints?
Sorry, but I find your pages a classic case of a militantly heterosexual male scholar with an emotional investment in their subject which prevents them giving the obvious its due
Well, plenty of people have told me I’m a classic, and I’m pleased that you regard me as a scholar. I’ll confess that I do hold Erasmus in high esteem, which is certainly an emotional investment. But as to whether I have any emotional investment in the question of Erasmus’ sexual inclinations – well, that’s another story entirely. My emotional investment here is in my dedication to the truth. My obligation to the truth does impel me to refute the false claims of those who for political reasons would distort history. I believe that some gays have attempted to embellish the reputation of their group by arrogating to themselves the reputations of great men. I don’t know much about the many other historical figures who have been declared to be gay, but I do know a bit about Erasmus, and my studies clearly demonstrate that the case for Erasmus being gay is unsubstantiated and shot through with holes.
I will also note that, while gays have been eager to recruit a great many fine and respectable figures from history, they have said little about some of the great villains of history. I should think that, if gay scholars were blessed with intellectual integrity, they would have discovered some wholly unpleasant gay historical figures. Was Ghengis Khan gay? Vlad the Impaler? How about Timurlane? Caligula? Adolf Hitler? Rasputin? Surely gay scholars should be capable of finding at least *one* dastardly fellow who was gay... if they were looking.
>and no amount of argument from anyone is going to persuade you otherwise.
Argument, no. Data, documentation, solid reasoning, yes. I find it revealing that your diatribe makes no effort to discuss any of the logic or documentation of my lengthy analysis of this question. Have you no interest whatsoever in the facts I have presented? You seem more interested in composing dismissive insults than refuting my reasoning. If you’re going to hit, don’t wave your arms around in the air – hit the target!
His response:
>But I have to say, your “Erasmus was not gay” section comes across as very comical.
>Is “comical” truly the adjective you wish to use?
I’m sorry, but yes.
>Establishing homosexuality itself as a capital offense, as has been done in many cultures, is a pretty absolutist approach, wouldn’t you agree?
Of course. But that doesn’t mean human sexuality is.
>Have Europeans ever heard of a culture known as “Islam”? Quite interesting views on sexuality – you really should have a look at it sometime.
Yes, I’m very familiar with the Arab poets. Not to mention Section D of Burton’s Terminal Essay to the Arabian Nights. ;-) What a pity American commanders aren’t. One of the papers here was very witty regarding their recent cultural shock in Kabul when the Arab soldiers wanted their boys to accompany them. But then, when the most famous lines in Afghanistan are “There’s a boy across the river with a bottom like a peach, but alas I cannot swim”, what could they expect?
>>Erasmus lived almost his entire life in male environments. It would be very surprising indeed if his infatuations and erotic inclinations *weren’t* male directed.
>That’s totally speculative.
You’re only looking at the facts and not at the context. Yes it’s speculation, but given the context, it’s an utterly reasonable deduction to make that his erotic focus wasn’t female directed. Did he mix with women at Oxford, Cambridge, or as a monk in Rotterdam? Did Erasmus ever have a female love interest? Is there the glimmer of any empassioned expression to any woman?
>>And there was a time in his life when he was a haze of obsessional love, to whatever degree you wish to quantify it. The point is, he found it extremely upsetting.
>What time of his life was that?
Obviously you can read his letters to Servatious, but not read his letters.
>What is a “haze of obsessional love”?
When you write to someone words such as: “I have become yours so completely that nothing of myself is left.”
>What precisely did he find “extremely upsetting”
– his own feelings, Of course the reactions of others
The non-responsiveness of Servatious to the emotions he was expressing in such words as I have quoted he would naturally have found distressing. Anyone would
>I believe that some gays have attempted to embellish the reputation of their group by arrogating to themselves the reputations of great men.
That’s a natural response of any oppressed group. See Great Jews Of History, etc. But there’s also a process of uncovering and reclaiming going on: e.g. the homosexual material involving that other great renaissance humanist Sir Francis Bacon, which had been erased from British archives, and was only recently rediscovered in a French archive.
>I don’t know much about the many other historical figures who have been declared to be gay,
Even with his contemporaries, where does one begin? I was reading an antiquarian dealer’s book catalogue tonight and noticed for sale a circa 1500 biography of Piers Gaveston commissioned by... the Bishop Of Lyon! Nothing changes.
>I will also note that, while gays have been eager to recruit a great many fine and respectable figures from history, they have said little about some of the great villains of history.
Oh I do hope the darlings hug more villains to their breasts. For instance, the homosexual aspect of de Sade is very downplayed in English studies...but not those in French or Italian! Of course, Himmler was frightfully upset when his masseur Felix Kersten told him that his great hero Frederick The Great was a screamer! But then, even for a great villain, Himmler wasn’t worldly, and sadly bourgeois.
Enough. It’s been fun, but I’m bored now.
And so my critic slunk off into the sunset, unwilling to continue the discussion. Had I had the opportunity, I would have complained that his quotations and historical references, while impressive, were utterly divagatory, and that he refused to rise to my challenge that he present some kind of fact, documentation, or reasoning relating to Erasmus himself. His comments are all a load of academic sound and fury, signifying nothing.