Homosexuality in Britain (5th/6th century AC): Celts, Saxons, Picts and Scots

[lucre_noin]

I usually write a lot of arthurian stories but this time I'd love to document well myself about homosexuality and arthurian times.
The story is in 5th/6th century and the societies/cultures in the stories are: Celts, Picts, Scots, Saxons and Celts conquered by Romans. And, of course, one of the male characters is in love with another male character.

Comments

[sollersuk]

You can certainly have pre-Roman influences; as recently as the 1960s (I don't have data for later) there were a disconcerting number of Celtic practices in places well into the middle of England. One problem, though, is that even before the Roman conquest, Britannia couldn't be treated as one culture; in the South East they had already taken on a lot of Roman attributes, such as towns, roads and money using devices from Roman coins, whereas in the West, particularly Wales, many practices, such as attitudes to marriage and illegitimacy, continued into the Middle Ages. The same area that embraced Roman culture happily later embraced Saxon culture.

Yes, homosexuality was a sin, but so was straight sex outside marriage, and even in marriage if there was no chance of procreation, and according to some writers it was still sinful if either party enjoyed it. This leads me to suspect that people as a whole didn't pay much attention to what sexual practices they had been told were sinful and just did them anyway.

Do try to get hold of Gildas. My favourite penance is:

"If on account of drunkenness someone is unable to sing the pslms, being benumbed and speechless, he shall be deprived of his supper."

Quite mild, I think!

Sex with an animal, by the way, only gets one year penance; one third of the rate for sex with a woman.

[sollersuk]

Further thoughts on attitudes to sin: it was considered sinful to go to the Baths. One bishop wrote a furious letter to another bishop, asking why he went to the Baths twice a day. Tongue firmly in cheek, he replied that it was because there wasn't enough time in the day to go more often.

In the 5th century, the Pope wrote to the bishop of Lyon criticising him for attending services at the synagogue every Saturday. The bishop didn't exactly FIWPB because the letter survives; he just went on doing it.

[randomstasis]

*snickers*
although I agree that sin is a very Christian concept, and OP should note the fact that priests complained about something implies that it is in fact happening, at least in some sense which includes "as interpreted in their twisted little minds"
I believe the injunction against baths originates in two "sins"; bathing feels good and makes you look good, and seeing other naked people gets you all hot and bothered, which causes you to want to do something about that. So naturally frequent bathing meant intentional frequent fornication...

[sollersuk]

The Baths thing was connected with the growing use for prostitution. There is a very odd reason why Christians were told not to frequent brothels: many abandoned children ended up in brothels, and there was a real risk that a man might inadvertently commit incest with a sister or daughter.

Times at the Baths were separate for men and women so men seeing nude women (and vice versa) wasn't an issue.

[randomstasis]

Ah, was it growing? I rather thought it was common;)

knew that about brothels- and have a rant all set about the Church's treatment of illegitimate children in that case and in general,btw

"men seeing nude women (and vice versa) wasn't an issue"
but given the OP's question, segregated baths are still relevant to the issue.

[charlycrash]

There's a Roman joke:

The Emperor Augustus hears of a man in Rome from the provinces who looks eerily like him. Intrigued, he has the man brought to his palace. He asks him: "Tell me, did you mother used to visit Rome?"

The man replies "No, Majesty, but my father visited all the time."

[corvideye]

FIWPB?

[lytrigian]

What might have been sinful and to what degree as canonized by the Church may not be the same thing as social acceptability, and I don't think one can be taken as a reliable guide to the other.

For instance, while both the receptive and active partners in same-sex relations might be under the same canon, I'd find it hard to believe that the same stigma attached to both according to society. The receptive partner has very, very often been seen as less acceptable than the active. Heterosexual relations were usually far less stigmatized than homosexual even if they were equally illicit.

While I don't know about this for a fact in Celtic culture -- I'm not sure anyone does -- it's something to consider.

As far as "Celtic practices", caution is required. There is often less there than meets the eye. Some apparently ancient customs cannot be shown to be particularly so. The locals are unfortunately no help: they have sometimes been contaminated by anthropologists who have come by and told them (often without evidence) that what they're doing harks back to antiquity, which they then believe and repeat to anyone who asks. (See Ronald Hutton, The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles)

[cloudsinvenice]

as recently as the 1960s (I don't have data for later) there were a disconcerting number of Celtic practices in places well into the middle of England.

You've piqued my curiosity - can you recommend any books or websites that would be good for reading up on that?