Elizabeth I was queen when a powerful lord, and member of her court, brought a controversial playwright under his wing. The two men developed a deep bond that survived accusations of sodomy...
We will rarely know for certain whether relationships between men 400 years ago, or more, were homo-erotic, homo-amorous, or homo-romantic because the social customs, mores and the relationships between men and women or between men were not as they are today. They certainly loved each other - as brothers, as intelligent and educated men, as close friends, maybe as sexual lovers. Men, often strangers, shared a bed to keep warm or simply to sleep.
I usually enjoy your writing and I have no wish to detract or disagree with your romance. I send my thanks and appreciation.
Genetically, there are several genes in both men and women that can appear in DNA to make any humans (primates or other mammals) to be more or less likely to behave bisexually or homosexually.
Thank you for your comment, Ray. As usual, you're right on target. It's true that same-sex romantic relationships that existed centuries in the past can be a challenge to scholars. Especially because the concept of love is constantly evolving. In this case, it appears that at the very least, Marlowe had a keen interest in homosexual liaisons. But that says nothing about the true nature of his association with Walsingham. However, Walsingham's steadfast support for Marlowe even when he was accused publicly of being a sodomite, is suspect and debatable. The poem itself does not speak of their love as physical, but it does hint at deeper feelings that may have existed between them beyond the platonic level.
Surely, about the rumour and gossip - plus the indicative evidence and the loyal support of Walsingham.
I wasn't commenting on your poem. I was actually blowing off academical and scientific steam about the binary view of mammalian sexuality and the human, often morbid, fascination about people doing naughty, scurrilous, but nice things with others. I end with "love is love is love" no matter how it is expressed.
We will rarely know for certain whether relationships between men 400 years ago, or more, were homo-erotic, homo-amorous, or homo-romantic because the social customs, mores and the relationships between men and women or between men were not as they are today. They certainly loved each other - as brothers, as intelligent and educated men, as close friends, maybe as sexual lovers. Men, often strangers, shared a bed to keep warm or simply to sleep.
I usually enjoy your writing and I have no wish to detract or disagree with your romance. I send my thanks and appreciation.
Genetically, there are several genes in both men and women that can appear in DNA to make any humans (primates or other mammals) to be more or less likely to behave bisexually or homosexually.
Thank you for your comment, Ray. As usual, you're right on target. It's true that same-sex romantic relationships that existed centuries in the past can be a challenge to scholars. Especially because the concept of love is constantly evolving. In this case, it appears that at the very least, Marlowe had a keen interest in homosexual liaisons. But that says nothing about the true nature of his association with Walsingham. However, Walsingham's steadfast support for Marlowe even when he was accused publicly of being a sodomite, is suspect and debatable. The poem itself does not speak of their love as physical, but it does hint at deeper feelings that may have existed between them beyond the platonic level.
Surely, about the rumour and gossip - plus the indicative evidence and the loyal support of Walsingham.
I wasn't commenting on your poem. I was actually blowing off academical and scientific steam about the binary view of mammalian sexuality and the human, often morbid, fascination about people doing naughty, scurrilous, but nice things with others. I end with "love is love is love" no matter how it is expressed.