Today's post kicks off a series of publications that revolve around the concept of friendship, especially same-sex friendships.
Bray, Alan. 2003. The Friend. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-07181-7
Although Bray does discuss women’s friendships at various points, the book is overwhelmingly focused on men and doesn’t always recognize the societal differences men’s and women’s experiences and possibilities. As usual with studies that purport to be inclusive but focus primarily on men's experiences, it isn't clear whether Bray even considered the possibility that women's experiences took a sufficiently different form that they would require a different approach to find. If women are overwhelmingly excluded from formal institutions of learning and from church institutions, then a study that finds a wealth of men's friendships in those institutions would be wrong to conclude that the absence of parallel female examples means that women didn't form friendships. If women are largely excluded from a publicly-performed life, then evidence for their friendships may need to be sought in more private records. And so on, and so forth. The reverse can occur in studies that look at the "romantic friendship" phenomenon through the lens of female-only institutions and activities and somehow conclude that men in that era were incapable of forming deep personal bonds with other men, just because they weren't necessarily using the same language and the same symbolism.
Bray’s book was inspired by trying to understand the meaning behind various joint funeral memorials of pairs of non-related men. The study expanded to “the distinctive place friendship occupied in traditional society” in Europe from the 11th to the 18th centuries. The focus is on friendship as a public rather than a private phenomenon. He also touches on the relationship of homosexuality to same-sex friendship.
The core of the book’s topic, and the image that Bray returns to in each section, is co-burial with symbolism reminiscent of that used for married couples. His study focuses on England and there are aspects of the English experience (especially around religious issues) that don’t necessarily track to other cultures. He stakes out a position that, before the 17th century, he could find no evidence for women possessing the specific type of “kin-like” friendships that he is studying. [Note: As in many similar studies, he doesn’t appear to question deeply whether this is because they didn’t exist or because they existed in forms that left a different type of evidence than men’s friendships did.] For this reason, I’ll skim over many of the details of his study and focus more closely when women are involved.
Chapter 1: Wedded Brother
The focal point in this chapter is the joint tombstone of two 14th century English knights buried in Byzantium. The helmets and coats of arms on the stone are arranged to turn to face each other. Each image bears a shield with both their arms impaled together, as might be done for a married couple. In the 15th century, a heraldic treatise commented on two Spanish knights who were “sworn brothers” and similarly impaled their arms as a sign of the relationship. Also in the 15th century we have a record of two English squires swearing an oath of brotherhood in a church. [Note: Compare this with Boswell’s study of “same-sex unions” which focuses on a specific type of liturgical ceremony for similar relationships and thus may overlook some of the examles Bray considers.]
There are references in medieval romance of sworn brothers sealing their pact with a “kiss of peace”. [Note: it’s important to be aware that kissing was used as a formal symbolic gesture in many non-romantic and non-erotic contexts in this era.] Bray discusses various examples of similar sworn brotherhood in various contexts. One example for which we have significant commentary, due to its prominence and political implications is that between Edward II and Piers Gaveston, who swore brotherhood “after feeling love [amor] for each other at first sight.”
Bray discusses the supposed “purposes” claimed for sworn brotherhood, all of which can be shown not to apply in many cases.
Chapter 2: Friend to Sir Philip Sidney
This chapter begins by describing the planned joint memorial for Fulke Greville and Philip Sidney in the early 17th century, although the memorial was never built. Again, the description matches what would be expected for a married couple in that era: a double tomb arranged as two beds (set vertically) with statues of the two.
Greville and Sidney described their friendship in a more private way than earlier examples of “sworn brothers.” They used pastoral imagery and discussed it in private letters.
There is a detailed discussion of Greville and Sidney’s history and context together, as well as the context of how friendship between men was represented at the time. Such sworn friendships almost inevitably involved inequity of rank, but bonds of patronage and service between them allowed a high level of closeness and trust.
The language of friendship partook of fancy rhetoric in part to negotiate the dangers of the bond, due to conflicting bonds and obligations external to the friendship. Friendship carried obligations that were not easily ignored. And friendship assumed a level of privacy that could easily be betrayed.
Chapter 3: Families and Friends
The chapter opens with more examples of joint memorial brasses of pairs of unrelated men, focusing on a 14th century example with two tonsured clerics at Merton College. Comparative examples of m/f married couples on memorial brasses are provided from the same era.
Bray compares the language of brotherhood oaths with the language of marriage and betrothal. [Note: it’s important to recognize that much of the vocabulary we now consider to be specific to marriage derives from language that had more general applications. Those general applications were not a metaphoric extension of the vocabulary, but the original core meanings. Thus heterosexual marriage was seen as a subset of a larger variety of formal bonds between people that included same-sex bonds.] This language included phrases like “to plight troth” or “wed-brothers” where both “troth” and “wed” are related to the swearing of formal oaths. “Wed” means a pledge or covenent. “Wedded” can apply to any act of commitment. There is also regular use of kinship terminology for sworn friends.
Studies of Byzantine adelphopoiesis rituals [the ones Boswell studied] note that such rituals were considered ordinary in secular society but began to be viewed critically within the church (for clerics) around the 12th century, though it continued to be practiced.
Finally a female example! Mention of the early 17th century joint memorial for Ann Chitting and Mary Barber in Suffolk, which was described by Ann’s son Henry. (The memorial no longer survives.) Does this mean that co-burials of unrelated women were a new thing in the 17th century? Or are they simply more visible then? [Note: or were they less likely to survive? Many of the male examples were preserved in academic institutions where there may have been more active conservation. Judith Bennett’s study of the 15th century joint memorial brass of Elizabeth Etchingham and Agnes Oxenbridge was not published until 5 years after Bray’s book. So he may not have known about it. But this is an illustration of the overall problem of male-centered research.]
The chapter provides many biographical details of m/m pairs of friends and discusses the religious context around the Reformation. More discussion of terminology, illustrated with letters between King James I and the Duke of Buckingham that refers to their friendship as “marriage.” A broader discussion of this history of royal favorites as “sworn brothers” who might act in the king’s name and were often attacked or disapproved of for that authority.
A discussion of kinship structures and anthropological concepts of “family” that extend beyond genetic links. There was a greater diversity of non-genetic bonds being recognized than in modern life where marriage is the only major recognized example. Pre-modern individuals existed within a potential multitude of “families.” Some such bonds automatically brought in other connections, while some were more narrowly construed as applying only to the specific bond.
We return to the Chitting/Barber tombs, now lost, but described by contemporary documents. Barber was the niece of the Chitting family’s patron. The inscriptions for the two women both recognize their marriages. Anne Chitting is buried next to Mary Barber (whose husband is buried on her other side). It’s unclear if Ann’s husband was still living when the memorial was created or was buried elsewhere.
Bray discusses the “uses” of friendships of this type, including inheritance, patronage, mentoring, family support, and legal surrogacy.
The chapter moves on to a discussion of the Eastern Orthodox liturgy for creating adelphopoiesis (sworn siblinghood). The Franciscan order had a similar rite (a 14th century example is given). The original texts and translations are provided.
Chapter 4: The Body of the Friend
This chapter focuses on physical aspects and expectations for friends. The beginning example is a mid-17th century co-burial describing the two men’s relationship as “animorum connubium” (a marriage of souls) in the inscription. Would this phrase have been interpreted by their contemporaries as a “sworn brotherhood” as in earlier centuries?
The chapter discusses Jeremy Taylor’s Discourse of Friendship (1657) and how it describes a mingling of interests, fortunes, and counsels. Symbols of the physical closeness of friendship include the kiss of peace and the joint location in the tomb, but what else? Taylor exhorts “so must the love of friends sometimes be refreshed with material and low caresses, lest by striving to be too divine it become less humane.” That is, a physical aspect of friendship was considered not only ordinary, but necessary.
Between the pair of men that is the focus of this chapter, one served as the other’s secretary and go-between. (A not uncommon inequality between the pairs of friends discussed in this book.)
We return to the example of James I, this time in his relationship with the Earl of Somerset, with a description of their physical displays of affection and how these were viewed negatively. These included the earl kissing the king’s hand and how James “hung about his neck, slabbering his cheeks.”
The language of kisses and embraces was common as a sign of friendship and goodwill between same-sex pairs. Examples of friendship gestures included arranging/adjusting the other’s clothing. Such actions conferred social status and power on the less ranking recipient and were meant to be understood as conferring that status.
Dining together was another sign of friendship, especially as we move into the 17th century when high-status diners were moving from the common hall into a private chamber. The bedchamber and bed were another place where friendship bonds could be publicly demonstrated. Giving someone an audience in the bedchamber was a mark of closeness and favor. Sharing of beds was expected and was another context where the choice of who to share with indicated closeness. One’s bed-partner was also public knowledge, given that bedchambers were not a “private” space--the lack of corridors in domestic architecture meant that one necessarily moved through rooms to get from one place to another. The term “bedfellow” reflected such choice of closeness but in this era did not assume a sexual relationship as it acquired later. Within the context of a status-differentiated friendship, performing personal service for the friend’s body is another sign of closeness.
These signs of closeness were both sincere and capable of being used strategically on both sides. Bray discusses how overwhelmingly male the environments in which these friendships took place. [Note: That is, how overwhelmingly male men’s environments were.] This is obvious in the context of colleges, but also in the context of the servants and attendants of a man of high status. Women, even when supplying the needs of great houses, tended to “live out” and reside in all-female groups rather than being an integrated part of the household. [Note: Bray doesn’t entirely make clear here how the picture changes in a household that includes a wife and children, rather than the household of a man who is either single or living separately from his immediate family.]
Friends at all levels of society marked their bond (especially at separations) with an exchange of tokens: rings, knives, caps, etc. But letters and books also formed a type of gift exchange. Letters were treasured, not only for the content, but as a symbol of the friend’s presence. Great men, who had secretaries to write for them, might write in their own hand as a special gift.
There is a discussion of suggestively sexual jokes and humor between friends, noting that it can occur between male friends who elsewhere express conventional horror of sodomy. Bray takes the position that such jokes are about affirming masculinity, but could not possibly(!) be about sexual relations. (And yet, the enemies of those friend-pairs clearly might read sexual meanings into the relationship.)
There is a brief admission that little has been said about women, who also formed similar pseudo-kin bonds, shared beds, etc. Bray notes that women left fewer traces in the historic record due to having less property and influence. But in literature, how do women figure in relation to same-sex friendships? His answer is that they appear primarily as the enemies of men’s same-sex friendships. [Note: once again, there is plenty of data on women’s positive same-sex friendships in literature if you are specifically looking for it.]
Chapter 5: Friends and Enemies
The chapter begins as usual with the biography of a specific pair of friends, this time two Catholic priests who fled England together in the 16th century during the religious struggles of the Reformation. There had long been a popular association of Catholic religious orders with sodomy, in part because of the prohibition on married clergy, but in part because of the association of sodomy with effeminacy. In the 16th century, sodomy was considered something everyone was capable of, not a fixed orientation. In contrast to earlier uses of the term, it had become strongly gendered, applying only to men and indicating effeminacy. The term was also more vague than “anal sex” and was considered to go hand in hand with other moral defects.
Thus, the association for Protestants of sodomy with Catholic priests was in part as a symptom of their general immorality. In England, in particular, Catholics were associated with treason and violent opposition to the government.
Pairs of close male friends, especially in universities or religious institutions, were ripe for accusations of sodomy. This connection then extended to the sense that sodomites (especially male friends) were more likely to turn traitor because of the overall immorality that was associated with that term.
There is more discussion of the overlap of male friendships and the idea of betrayal, but as there is no discussion of female topics I’m skipping the rest of this chapter.
Chapter 6: Friendship and Modernity
The chapter example is a joint memorial in Merton College. There is a discussion of shifts in domestic space in the 18th century that created “privacy” as a concept. The sharing of bed and board was no longer a public performance. [Note: it still happened, it just didn’t have the same public symbolism as an open act.] Physical intimacy changed in significance. Men of rank were no longer served by other gentlemen but by servants separated by a class divide. Up and down the social ladder, there was a sense that physical privacy was expected between non-family. Bray is talking here about a narrowly English development that continental visitors found odd.
Formal non-sexual kissing began to disappear. The Enlightenment and a shift away from personal bonds as the basis of commerce and government changed the economic function of close friendships. “Friend” became a more general and diffuse concept, rather than an intimate bond.
In parallel with this formalization of friendship, marriage became more rigid and formal, requiring the presence of clergy and documentation. Bray notes the marriage in 1680 between James Howard (Amy Poulter) and Arabella Hunt. [Note: see Crawford and Mendelson 1995] The evidence is confusing whether this marriage was intended to be sincere or was intended as a joke. Was this the formalization of a female same-sex friendship that was disavowed when things went awry? How might the clandestine Hunt/Poulter bond compare to the open Chitting/Barber bond that was celebrated? Another example of a female joint memorial is presented from 1710 between Mary Kendall and Catharine Jones. Bray discusses their biographical background and connections, showing how friendships were used to connect extended families.
Similar family bonds via same-sex friendship are demonstrated for men in the 18th century with multiple examples given. If such evidence of friendship bonds connecting families became harder to find by the 19th century, is it because they were less common or less visible?
Bray raises the example of Anne Lister to argue for the “less visible” option and points out that without the evidence of Lister’s diaries, her same-sex friendships would be invisible. He reviews evidence for how some of Lister’s family accepted and approved of her “union” with Ann Walker. The diaries go into details of various ceremonial signifiers for her different bonds, including exchanging rings, taking communion together, and pledges of fidelity. These all have echoes of how the language of marriage was incorporated in the tradition of “sworn friendship.”
Bray has a long discussion of the symbolism in the windows of the church where Lister and Walker took communion together. But this section is all very abstractly philosophical and involves a lot of putting thoughts into the heads of historic people.
Another joint memorial for two women--Anne Fleming and Catherine Jennis in 1795--is not technically a co-burial but references the proximity of the two graves in the church as a sign of their friendship.
Bray considers how the wealth of detail in the Lister diaries can shed light on the nature of less well documented same-sex friends. The erotic potential of such friendships goes in and out of focus. Only in rare cases, such as Lister’s, do we have access to the interior of such a bond. But we also know how Lister’s family treated that bond while being unaware of its sexual component. [Note: Or at least, while not leaving any documentary trace that they were aware.]
See also Lister’s opinions about the Ladies of Llangollen, whose public reputation was a non-sexual friendship while Lister suspected that it was sexual. Lister sometimes refers to her erotic interactions as a “weakness.” Might other same-sex friends have integrated their bonds in similar ways? The discussion concludes with a the legal and inheritance aspects of Lister’s union which reinforce the marriage-like aspect.
Chapter 7: Coda
The co-burial example for this chapter is from the late 19th century of two Catholic clergymen who explicitly requested to be buried together. There is a detailed documentary trail of how the one who died later re-emphasized multiple times this wish, evidently out of fear that his body would instead be memorialized in a more prominent and important location. Their memoirs emphasize the closeness (and even marriage-similarity) of their friendship. There is an involved discussion of the social politics of burials at the chapel. Bray creates a scenario in which the two are part of a long lineage across time of sworn friends who were commemorated with co-burial.
Afterword: Historians and Friendship
A discussion of the role and importance of studying friendship in history, with a survey of key studies of the topic and some of the major strands of disagreement among scholars, especially regarding the intersection of same-sex friendship and homosexuality.