Читать книгу Heterosexual Histories - Группа авторов - Страница 12

1. John Winthrop to William Spring, February 8, 1630, in Winthrop Papers, ed. Samuel Eliot Morison et al., 5 vols. (Boston, 1929–47), 2:203, 205–6.

2. Winthrop to Spring, 2:206; John Winthrop, “Experiencia,” in Winthrop Papers, 1:166, 202–4.

3. Winthrop, “Experiencia,” 1:202–3; Winthrop to Spring, February 8, 1630, 2:205–6; William Spring to John Winthrop, n.d. [March 1637], in Winthrop Papers, 3:365; John Winthrop to Margaret Winthrop, October 3, 1623, in The Life and Letters of John Winthrop, ed. Robert C. Winthrop, 2 vols. (Boston, 1864–67), 1:193.

4. David M. Halperin, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, and Other Essays on Greek Love (New York: Routledge, 1990), 9, 15, 16, 18, 29. Halperin was building on Michel Foucault’s argument that we should seek to understand sexuality not as a biological fact but instead as a cultural production, for which see Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978), esp. 127. For other helpful formulations of this approach, see Bruce R. Smith, Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare’s England: A Cultural Poetics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 10–11; and Jonathan Ned Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), viii–ix.

5. See Richard Godbeer, Sexual Revolution in Early America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), esp. 62–71.

6. For southern planters and their incorporation of sex into their sense of themselves as gentlemen, see Godbeer, 190–93.

7. Theorists have challenged the model of sexual orientation from a range of perspectives, and many young people reject as artificial the clear-cut distinctions on which the homo/heterosexual paradigm depends, invoking instead a more fluid understanding of sexual desire and identity. Meanwhile, some Christian denominations insist that our selection of sexual partners results from moral choice and not an innate sexuality. Yet the basic assumptions underlying this paradigm remain powerful and indeed predominant within Western culture.

8. Edward Taylor to Elizabeth Fitch, September 1674, in The Unpublished Writings of Edward Taylor, ed. Thomas M. Davis and Virginia L. Davis, 3 vols. (Boston: Twayne, 1981), 3:37–41; Edward Taylor, The Poems of Edward Taylor, ed. Donald E. Stanford (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1960), 142, 164, 212, 230, 248, 259, 295, 362–63, 448. Taylor drew extensively on the language of Canticles. See, for example, his adaptation of “Let him kiss me with the kiss of his mouth” (Cant. 1:2) in Poems of Edward Taylor (254–55) and of “I am my beloved and my beloved is mine” (Cant. 6:2; 323–25).

9. Samuel Sewall, The Diary of Samuel Sewall, ed. M. Halsey Thomas, 2 vols. (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1973), 2:864 (October 19, 1717), 882 (February 6, 1718), 891 (April 4, 1718); Increase Mather, Practical Truths Plainly Delivered (Boston, 1718), 59–60.

10. See Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988); E. Ann Matter, The Voice of My Beloved: The Song of Songs in Western Medieval Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990); and Dyan Elliott, Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). For discussions of marital imagery in early-modern English literature, see Barbara Kiefer Lewalski, Protestant Poetics and the Seventeenth-Century Religious Lyric (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977); Stanley Stewart, The Enclosed Garden: The Tradition and the Image in Seventeenth-Century Poetry (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1966); Jonathan Jong-Chu Won, “Communion and Christ: An Exposition and Comparison of the Doctrine of Union and Communion with Christ in Calvin and the English Puritans” (PhD diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1989); and Amanda Porterfield, Female Piety in Puritan New England: The Emergence of Religious Humanism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), chap. 1.

11. Cotton Mather, Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion (Boston, 1692), 64; Mather, A Glorious Espousal (Boston, 1719), 12; Mather, A Union with the Son of God by Faith (Boston, 1692), 13–15; Mather, The Mystical Marriage (Boston, 1728), 6; Joshua Moodey, A Practical Discourse Concerning the Choice Benefit of Communion with God in His House (Boston, 1685), 24–25.

12. Samuel Willard, A Complete Body of Divinity (Boston, 1726), 459, 533, 556; Willard, The High Esteem Which God Hath of the Death of His Saints (Boston, 1683), 15; Willard, Some Brief Sacramental Meditations (Boston, 1711), 4; Cotton Mather, Bethiah (Boston, 1722), 30.

13. I. Mather, Practical Truths, 175; Willard, Complete Body of Divinity, 892; C. Mather, Diary of Cotton Mather, ed. Worthington C. Ford, 2 vols. (1911; repr., New York: Ungar, 1957), 1:98 (May 13, 1685), 426 (April 16, 1702), 471 (March 12, 1703), 483 (May 15, 1703).

14. See Richard Godbeer, “Performing Patriarchy: Gendered Roles and Hierarchies in Early Modern England and Seventeenth-Century New England,” in The Worlds of John Winthrop: England and New England, 1588–1649, ed. Francis J. Bremer and Lynn Botelho (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2005), 290–333.

15. Male New Englanders’ conception of themselves as brides of Christ would have been facilitated by their pastors’ depiction of the soul as not adopting the sex of the body it inhabited: they characterized the soul sometimes as female and sometimes as sexually indeterminate. This mattered because Christ would marry not men and women but their souls. Elizabeth Reis has argued that a gendered distinction between body and soul allowed Puritan men to think of their souls as feminine while retaining a masculine “sense of themselves.” I would suggest that such a distinction functioned as one component of a broad gender fluidity. See Godbeer, Sexual Revolution in Early America, 79–82; and Reis, Damned Women: Sinners and Witches in Puritan New England (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), 93–120 (quote on 101). Margaret Masson argues that ministers could use “the female role as a typology for the regenerate Christian” without creating “role conflict” for men because New Englanders “had not yet arrived at definitions of sex roles or personality structure that were as fixed or mutually exclusive as those found in the nineteenth century.” Masson, “The Typology of the Female as a Model for the Regenerate: Puritan Preaching, 1690–1730,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2 (1976): 305, 315; see also Porterfield, Female Piety, 6–7, 156.

16. C. Mather, Ornaments for the Daughters of Zion, 39, 42.

17. Willard, Complete Body of Divinity, 131, 145; Nehemiah Walter, Unfruitful Hearers Detected and Warned (Boston, 1696), 52; William Adams, The Necessity of the Pouring Out of the Spirit (Boston, 1679), A4; Samuel Danforth, A Brief Recognition of New England’s Errand into the Wilderness (Cambridge, MA, 1671), 12; John Wise, A Word of Comfort to a Melancholy Country (Boston, 1721), 11. John Oxenbridge likened magistrates to “a nursing father” who “bears the sucking child.” Oxenbridge, New England Freemen (Cambridge, MA, 1673), 36–37. For an extended discussion of maternal imagery in Puritan literature, see David Leverenz, The Language of Puritan Feeling: An Exploration in Literature, Psychology, and Social History (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1980).

18. John Cotton, The Way of the Churches of Christ in New England (London, 1645), 4; see also John Winthrop, The History of New England from 1630 to 1649, ed. James Savage, 2 vols. (Boston, 1825–26), 2:281.

19. Phyllis Mack, Visionary Women: Ecstatic Prophecy in Seventeenth-Century England (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 49. See also Lisa Wilson, Ye Heart of a Man: The Domestic Life of Men in Colonial New England (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999); Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650–1750 (New York: Knopf, 1982), 3, 38; Anthony Fletcher, Gender, Sex, and Subordination in England, 1500–1800 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), 403; and Susan Dwyer Amussen, An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 3. Gender flexibility applied only within particular contexts: women who tried to exercise male-identified prerogatives in circumstances that others saw as inappropriate or who challenged the need to conceptualize power in male terms, appropriating authority in their own right as women, became extremely vulnerable. See, for example, “Proceedings of Excommunication against Mistress Ann Hibbens of Boston,” in Remarkable Providences: Readings in Early American History, ed. John Demos (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1991), 262–82.

20. A growing number of early-modern writers challenged this anatomical paradigm, depicting the female organs as distinct and arguing that women’s bodies were perfect in their own right. But during this transitional period, elements of the Galenic model were often combined with newer ideas, so that distinctions between maleness and femaleness remained much less absolute than in later periods. Fletcher, Gender, Sex, and Subordination, 33, 41, 44, 79, 82, 108; Thomas Laqueur, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990). See also Janet Adelman, “Making Defect Perfection: Shakespeare and the One-Sex Model,” in Enacting Gender on the English Renaissance Stage, ed. Viviana Comensoli and Anne Russell (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999), 23–52; and Stephen Orgel, Impersonations: The Performance of Gender in Shakespeare’s England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 21–23.

21. See Evelyn Blackwood, “Sexuality and Gender in Certain Native American Tribes: The Case of Cross-Gender Females,” Signs 10 (1984): 27–24; Walter L. Williams, The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture (Boston: Beacon, 1986); Raymond E. Houser, “The ‘Berdache’ and the Illinois Indian Tribe during the Last Half of the Seventeenth Century,” Ethnohistory 37 (1990): 45–65; Sue-Ellen Jacobs, Wesley Thomas, and Sabine Lang, eds., Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spirituality (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997); Will Roscoe, Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America (New York: St. Martin’s, 1998); Qwo-Li Driskell, Asegi Stories: Cherokee Queer and Two-Spirit Memory (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2016); and Gregory D. Smithers, “Cherokee ‘Two Spirits’: Gender, Ritual, and Spirituality in the Native South,” Early American Studies 12 (2014): 626–51.

22. Mack, Visionary Women, 50; Winthrop, Life and Letters of John Winthrop, 1:136 (John Winthrop to Margaret Tyndal, April 4, 1618), 397 (John Winthrop to William Spring, February 28, 1629).

23. John Winthrop, “A Model of Christian Charity,” in Winthrop Papers, 2:284, 288–94; for another invocation of Ruth and Naomi as a model for friendship, see Thomas Brooks, Heaven on Earth (1654; repr., London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1961), 251.

24. Roger Ludlow, in behalf of General Assembly of Connecticut to Governor and Assistants of Massachusetts, May 29, 1638, in Winthrop Papers, 4:36.

25. Hugh Peter to John Winthrop Jr., September 30, 1638, June 23, 1645, ca. April 1647, March 15, 1649, in Winthrop Papers, 4:63, 5:30, 146, 319–20; Edward Howes to John Winthrop Jr., November 9, 1631, March 7, 1632, March 26, 1632, February 25, 1640, in Winthrop Papers, 3:54, 66, 72, 4:203.

26. Michael Warner, “New English Sodom,” in Queering the Renaissance, ed. Jonathan Goldberg (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1994), 339, 345. Scholars of early-modern England have noted that the specter of sodomy did occasionally cast a shadow over loving male friendships. Alan Bray, for example, discusses “dark suggestions of sodomy” in Elizabethan literary representations of male friendship, in “Homosexuality and the Signs of Male Friendship in Elizabethan England,” in Goldberg, Queering the Renaissance, 40–61 (quote on 49).

27. For examples of these evangelical friendships and the rhetoric that endorsed them, see Richard Godbeer, The Overflowing of Friendship: Love between Men and the Creation of the American Republic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 94–113.

28. Joseph Hooper to Benjamin Dolbeare, September 4, 1763, Dolbeare Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston; Daniel Webster to George Herbert, December 20, 1798, in The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, ed. J. W. McIntyre, 18 vols. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1903), 17:71.

29. Richard Thomas to Henry S. Drinker, October 1, 1793; Drinker to Thomas, October 8, 1793; Drinker to Thomas, March 18, 1813; Thomas to Drinker, April 19, 1813; all in Drinker and Sandwith Papers, vol. 4, file 67, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

30. See Anya Jabour, Marriage in the Early Republic: Elizabeth and William Wirt and the Companionate Ideal (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 5; and Jabour, “Male Friendship and Masculinity in the Early National South: William Wirt and His Friends,” Journal of the Early Republic 20 (2000): 83–111. See Naomi Tadmor, Family and Friends in Eighteenth-Century England (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Godbeer, Overflowing of Friendship; and Anne S. Lombard, Making Manhood: Growing Up Male in Colonial New England (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2003), 54.

31. For examples of abolitionists invoking brotherhood as a justification for emancipation, see Godbeer, Overflowing of Friendship, 170. For Cherokee conceptions of friendship in the eighteenth century and the role that friendship played in relations between the Cherokee and British officials along with Anglo-Americans, see Gregory D. Smithers, “‘Our Hands and Hearts Are Joined Together’: Friendship, Colonialism, and the Cherokee People in Early America,” Journal of Social History 50 (2017): 609–29.

32. For a fuller version of this argument, see Godbeer, Overflowing of Friendship, chap. 5. Republican thinkers also accorded women crucial roles as wives and mothers in fostering a virtuous male citizenry. See Ruth Bloch, “American Feminine Ideals in Transition: The Rise of the Moral Mother, 1785–1815,” Feminist Studies 4 (1978): 101–26; Linda Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980); Mary Beth Norton, Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750–1800 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1980); Ruth Bloch, “The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in Revolutionary America,” Signs 13 (1987): 37–58; Jan Lewis, “The Republican Wife: Virtue and Seduction in the Early Republic,” William and Mary Quarterly 44 (1987): 689–721; Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, “Daughters of Liberty: Religious Women in Revolutionary New England,” in Women in the Age of the American Revolution, ed. Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1989); Rosemary Zagarri, “Morals, Manners, and the Republican Mother,” American Quarterly 44 (1992): 192–215; and Godbeer, Sexual Revolution in Early America, chap. 8.

33. Cumberland Gazette, November 9, 1789. For loving male friendships in colonial North America and the early republic, see Caleb Crain, “Leander, Lorenzo, and Castalio: An Early American Romance,” Early American Literature 33 (1998): 6–38; Crain, American Sympathy: Men, Friendship, and Literature in the New Nation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001); Jabour, “Male Friendship and Masculinity”; Ivy Schweitzer, Perfecting Friendship: Politics and Affiliation in Early American Literature (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006); Godbeer, Overflowing of Friendship; Smithers, “Our Hands and Hearts Are Joined Together”; and Janet Moore Lindman, “‘This Union of the Soul’: Spiritual Friendship among Early American Protestants,” Journal of Social History 50 (2017): 680–700. See also Allan Silver, “Friendship in Commercial Society: Eighteenth-Century Social Theory and Modern Sociology,” American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 6 (1990): 1474–1504.

34. See Lillian Faderman, Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love between Women from the Renaissance to the Present (New York: William Morrow, 1981); Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, “The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations between Women in Nineteenth-Century America,” in Disorderly Conduct: Visions of Gender in Victorian America (New York: Knopf, 1985), 53–76; Carol Lasser, “‘Let Us Be Sisters Forever’: The Sororal Model of Nineteenth-Century Female Friendship,” Signs 14 (1988): 158–81; and Joan R. Gundersen, “Kith and Kin: Women’s Networks in Colonial Virginia,” in The Devil’s Lane: Sex and Race in the Early South, ed. Catherine Clinton and Michele Gillespie (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 90–108.

35. See Alan Bray and Michel Rey, “The Body of the Friend: Continuity and Change in Masculine Friendship in the Seventeenth Century,” in English Masculinities, 1660–1800, ed. Tim Hitchcock and Michele Cohen (New York: Longman, 1999), esp. 80. Bray discusses the emergence of this subculture in Homosexuality in Renaissance England (London: Gay Men’s Press, 1982), chap. 4; see also Rictor Norton, Mother Clap’s Molly House: The Gay Subculture in England, 1700–1830 (London: Gay Men’s Press, 1992). Randolph Trumbach argues that the emergence of the adult effeminate sodomite as a “third gender” had profound implications for the ways in which other men perceived and enacted their own versions of manhood as they sought to distinguish themselves from this new effeminate persona; see his Sex and the Gender Revolution: Heterosexuality and the Third Gender in Enlightenment London (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).

36. See Thomas A. Foster, “Antimasonic Satire, Sodomy, and Eighteenth-Century Masculinity in the Boston Evening Post,” William and Mary Quarterly 60 (2003): 171–84; and Clare A. Lyons, “Mapping an Atlantic Sexual Culture: Homoeroticism in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia,” William and Mary Quarterly 60 (2003): 152.

37. Daniel Webster to Thomas Merrill, May 1, 1804, in Writings and Speeches, 17:166; William Wirt to William Pope, August 5, 1803, Wirt Papers, Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore; Wirt to Dabney Carr, April 1, 1810, Wirt Papers; Wirt to Carr, June 10, 1814, Library of Virginia, Richmond. Anya Jabour discusses Wirt’s friendships in “Male Friendship and Masculinity.”

38. Israel Cheever to Robert Treat Paine, July 27, 1749, in Papers of Robert Treat Paine, ed. Stephen T. Riley and Edward Hanson, 3 vols. (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1992), 1:58; William Wirt to Dabney Carr, March 19, 1802, Wirt Papers.

39. William Benemann castigates Anya Jabour for holding back from the conclusion that the language used in letters written by the southern lawyer William Wirt and his male friends “imply actual sexual relations.” Jabour does acknowledge that a few of these letters “contained erotic overtones,” but as she points out, the letters between these men “give no indication that their prized reunions included sexual intimacy” (“Male Friendship and Masculinity,” 93). Benemann goes on to declare that Jabour’s “reticence stems from a reluctance to make definitive statements about the past which are unsupported by surviving evidence” and that “proper interpretation of ambiguous language” is the only alternative to leaving the subject of male-male intimacy “unexplored.” Others may be disturbed by the claim that one can make “definitive statements about the past which are unsupported by surviving evidence.” It is surely disingenuous to claim that we face a stark choice between doing so and leaving topics such as this “unexplored.” There is a middle way that involves circumspect presentation of evidence. Acknowledging that the language used by Wirt might indicate sexual attraction on his part is one thing, but to conclude that this “impl[ies] sexual relations” is quite another. Benemann, Male-Male Intimacy in Early America: Beyond Romantic Friendships (New York: Haworth, 2006), 16.

40. John Randolph to Henry Rutledge, quoted in William Cabell Bruce, John Randolph of Roanoke, 1773–1833, 2 vols. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1922), 1:127, 135; Cheever to Paine, July 27, 1749, 1:58; Wirt to Carr, March 19, 1802; Virgil Maxcy to William Blanding, January 1, 1800, Blanding Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston. Recent scholars of early modern England and Europe have also uncovered examples of male friendship in which love and sexual attraction intermingled. See, for example, George Haggerty, Men in Love: Masculinity and Sexuality in the Eighteenth Century (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999); and Guido Ruggiero, Machiavelli in Love: Sex, Self, and Society in the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007).

41. Most biographers of Alexander Hamilton, for example, either ignore suggestive passages in Hamilton’s correspondence with John Laurens, some playfully flirtatious and others deeply loving, or simply insist that their friendship must have been entirely nonsexual. As William Benemann points out, while there is “no irrefutable proof that Laurens and Hamilton were lovers,” there is “sufficient circumstantial evidence to render indefensible any unqualified pronouncement that they were not” (Male-Male Intimacy, xii–xiii). Unfortunately, Benemann goes on to claim that other male friendships probably did have an erotic component even when there is no evidence at all to suggest sexual attraction, let alone that sexual relations were taking place.

42. Cassandra Good, Founding Friendships: Friendships between Men and Women in the Early Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015). Historians such as Lillian Faderman (Surpassing the Love of Men) and Caroll Smith-Rosenberg (“Female World of Love and Ritual”) have uncovered a world of female friendship that incorporated a broad range of possibilities for emotional and physical intimacy.

43. Alan Bray, The Friend (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 6; Ivy Schweitzer, Perfecting Friendship: Politics and Affiliation in Early American Literature (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 6. David Halperin makes a similar point in his introduction to Love, Sex, Intimacy, and Friendship between Men, 1550–1800, ed. Katherine O’Donnell and Michael O’Rourke (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 8–11.

44. Halperin, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, 18.

45. See also Kathryn Wichelns, “From The Scarlet Letter to Stonewall: Reading the 1629 Thomas(ine) Hall Case, 1978–2009,” Early American Studies 12 (2014): 523: “In seeking to bring in from the margins those whose experiences were suppressed or ignored for so long, we must avoid the temptation to make them seem too familiar.”