Between Byzantine Men

Desire, Homosociality, and Brotherhood in the Medieval Empire

Mark Masterson

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2022
• eBook ISBN: 9781351135214
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

The presence and importance of same-sex desire between men in the Byzantine Empire has been understudied. While John Boswell and others tried to open a conversation about desire between Byzantine men decades ago, the field reverted to emphasis on prohibition and an inability to read the evidence of same-sex desire between men in the sources. Between Byzantine Men: Desire, Homosociality, and Brotherhood in the Medieval Empire challenges and transforms this situation by placing at centre stage Byzantine men's desiring relations with one another.

This book foregrounds desire between men in and around the imperial court of the 900s. Analysis of Greek sources (many untranslated until now) and of material culture reveals a situation both more liberal than the medieval West and important for its rite of brother-making ( adelphopoiesis ), which was a precursor to today's same-sex marriage. This book transforms our understanding of Byzantine elite men's culture and is an important addition to the history of sex and desire between men.

Between Byzantine Men will appeal to scholars and general readers who are interested in Byzantine History, Society, and Culture, the History of Masculinity, and the History of Sexuality.

1 Eroticism and Desire in Epistolography

DOI: 10.4324/9781351135238-2

Byzantine epistolography is a valuable resource for understanding relations between Byzantine elite men in the tenth century. A notable aspect of their letters is the frequent appearance of language of affection, desire, and sexual activity. This chapter features reparative readings of seven letters, readings that surface wishes for connection and happy affect. These letters attest to the unremarkableness of the language of same-sex desire and intimations of sexual behavior among these men, especially since Byzantine letters are not private like personal letters are in modern times. These letters were part of the public face of these men. Lastly, the letters are by men of education who quote and allude to both scripture and pagan literature to create intertextuality that is interpretable.¹

The seven letters are by four men from the imperial court of the mid-tenth century: Theodoros Daphnopates, Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, Theodoros of Kyzikos, and Symeon the Logothete. And while the expressions of love and desire are the substantial and important focus of this chapter, who these men were and their other writings matter also. Three of the selected epistolographers either wrote or were involved in the earliest surviving historiographies that tell of the rise of Emperor Basil I, which is the focus of Chapters 2 and 3. See Figure 1.1 for this network of letter writers, some of whom, Theodoros Daphnopates and Symeon the Logothete, also composed historiographies. Furthermore, Nikephoros Ouranos was connected to this group at two points. Theodoros Daphnopates wrote three letters, Letters 17, 18, and 31,—discussion of which leads off this chapter—to and for a man who plausibly was one of Nikephoros’ forebears, Basil Ouranos. Theodoros Daphnopates was also, most likely, the author of two of the historiographies to be considered in the two chapters that follow this one: the Life of Basil and Theophanes Continuatus. Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, who oversaw and commissioned the writing of the historiographies to be analyzed in the two chapters that follow this one, was also a participant in this letter-writing scene. Two warmly homosocial and erotic letters, one he wrote to Theodoros of Kyzikos and a letter he received from him in return, are next.² Nikephoros Ouranos was also friends with the last letter writer: Symeon the Logothete.³Symeon wrote a historiography, his Chronographia, which also appears in Chapters 2 and 3. Symeon the Logothete’s Letter 111 possesses remarkable warmth and intertextual intensity that fits with the other letters under consideration in this chapter, and shares significant vocabulary with his description in his historiography of Emperor Basil I’s ritual brotherhood. A connection not discussed in detail in this chapter, which is already long enough, is one between Theodoros of Kyzikos and Symeon the Logothete. Letter 109 in the collection of Symeon’s letters is one to Symeon from Theodoros,⁴ and Letter 110 is Symeon’s answer.⁵

Figure 1.1

How to Read Byzantine Epistolography

Epistolography was an important genre of Byzantine writing.⁶ There has been considerable admiration of its high level of polish and learned accomplishment.⁷ The attractive suggestion has been made that epistolography occupies a place in Byzantine literary productions that lyric poetry occupied in the earlier classical cultures.⁸ In addition, the androcentric focus of the genre,⁹ that is, the overwhelming majority of writers and recipients are men, suggests that this genre will be useful to investigations of relations between Byzantine men. Still, its value to narratives about Byzantine society and, in particular, relations between men, has been a point of contention. There has been a persisting position in the scholarship that regards the language in the letters as too rhetoricized and formalized to canvass for meaningful information about Byzantine society,¹⁰ and the presence of same-sex desire, while often noticed and occasionally taken seriously, has more often evoked strong reactions against seeing anything “real” about it.¹¹

Attention to the milieu of receiving a letter which featured the bearer, or komistes, who would have a message he delivered orally,¹² has also allowed additional scope for some scholars to imagine that the contents of a letter do not matter much. The komistes delivered the “real” message and the letter can safely be disregarded as only an objet d’art, as the story goes. But a doctrinaire insistence that there is nothing to see here should be resisted. It does not pay due attention to the dynamics of reception, that is, what a reader/listener understands from a text is up to them. Furthermore, seeing a letter as a gesture so formalized and instrumentalized that there is practically no meaning to be acquired from the text itself ignores the refrain in what little Byzantine theorizing of epistolography we have¹³ that a letter, an “icon of the soul,”¹⁴ is meant to convey something personal, that there is in fact content.¹⁵ It is therefore an attractive position that holds that a letter bears an impress of the personality of the writer and that there is something personal, even “real,” present, even if its presence is subtle.¹⁶ It therefore also is attractive to take the risk both to think about how the recipient might have understood a letter and to offer informed speculation about the general social situation of which a letter was a part.¹⁷ In that spirit, here are reparative readings of seven letters from a group of men meant to convey a picture of how they wanted their connections to one another to be seen by each other and others.

Letters of Theodoros Daphnopates

Like Nikephoros Ouranos, Theodoros Daphnopates had a glorious career. He was born about 900 and held various high offices over a long period, commencing in 925, when he held the ranks of patrikios (a high ranking dignity) and protoasekretis (“head of the college of imperial scribes”).¹⁸ He likely composed two historiographies: the Life of Basil and Theophanes Continuatus.¹⁹ In 959, he was promoted to military logothete²⁰ and in 961 he became Eparch²¹ of Constantinople.²² There are 40 letters surviving from his pen, which appear in an authoritative edition.²³ The three letters to be discussed presently, the 17th, 18th, and 31st, are concerned with the protospatharios (a dignity in the imperial hierarchy) and asekretis (“imperial scribe”), Basil Ouranos.²⁴ Given that he is an Ouranos, it is quite possible he is a relative of Nikephoros Ouranos. Letter 31 is addressed to Basil, while Letter 17, certainly, and 18, probably, were written by Theodoros for Basil to send out under his own name.²⁵ And as there is reference to the fact that Theodoros is eparch, these three letters probably date to the early 960s.

First up is the brief Letter 31. Theodoros thanks Basil for gifts and a beautiful feast at the time of the winter-solstice festival, the Brumalia:

To Basil Ouranos, protospatharios and asekretis:

It was allowed to the men of ancient times and especially in the times of Kronos to enjoy any food they might desire. But you have done so much through the sweetness and worthy-of-wonderment-ness of your most beautiful gifts, and, as far as this Winter solstice table is concerned, you charmed me, so it would lack little but that it would turn me to the nonsense of the pagans. But be well and may it be that you do well for a long time, strengthening through more lavish gifts my/our…²⁶ of which I am exorbitantly proud and my love which is very hot (to tes agapes diapuron/τὸ τῆς ἀγάπης διάπυρον).

(Theodoros Daphnopates, Letter 31)²⁷

This is no Letter 26 from Nikephoros Ouranos. It does not speak of friendship blessed by God. Instead, there is a nod to the pagan Golden Age of which Hesiod speaks memorably: parties and the earth giving freely of its bounty²⁸ in a universe ruled by Kronos.²⁹ The presence of Kronos is redoubled by reference to the winter festival, Brumalia, that also goes by the name of Kronia. There are gifts and a festal board that Daphnopates says are liable to turn him, charmed, away from God to paganism. This letter of thanks concludes with wishes for Basil’s health and then for more gifts that will strengthen both something of his or theirs which is a source of pride (this moment is obscure: a problem with the text) and, and this is clearer, the undoubted warmth of love. This letter is about sensual delights, gifts, and love that increases, all of which are not the province of God. What the church might wish to say about their love is, pointedly, far away, and Theodoros is content to at least pretend to be led away from God.

With this sensual letter left behind, it is time for Letters 17 and 18. Both of these letters, but especially Letter 17, deserve to be much better known for the light they shine on Byzantine homosociality and a relation it has to same-sex desire. Letter 18 is first, as one better appreciates the extravagance of Letter 17, if one first experiences what appears to be a scaled-back version of it.

Letter 18

It is probable that Theodoros wrote Letter 18 for Basil Ouranos to send to a friend who had gotten married, which is what is specified for Letter 17. The editors of the 1978 collection of the letters proposed that Letter 18 replaced Letter 17, because the latter may have been judged as excessive by Basil.³⁰ This congenial judgment³¹ allows a reader now to assume that this letter comes across as a more buttoned-up version of Letter 17 and that Letter 17 should not be seen as a sexy and inexplicable outlier, but instead on a continuum with Letter 18. This dupli...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Acknowledgments
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• 1 Eroticism and Desire in Epistolography
• 2 Histories of Masculine Beauty and Desire: The Case of Emperor Basil I
• 3 Framing the Brotherhoods of Emperor Basil I
• 4 Revisiting the Bachelorhood of Emperor Basil II
• Conclusion
• Works Cited
• Index